international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an

improved strut injection scheme

S. Aravind, Rajiv Kumar*

Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi, 835215, India

article info abstract

Article history: Numerical investigation of mixing is performed at Mach 2.0 model Scramjet combustor
Received 30 September 2018 employing parallel strut injection schemes for fuel. In the present investigation, basic strut
Received in revised form injector is modified in such a way to produce additional vortices in streamwise direction
4 January 2019 and improve fuel-air mixing. Air is injected at Mach 2.0 at the combustor inlet and fuel is
Accepted 9 January 2019 injected at sonic speed from the blunt end of the strut. The flow field involving high-speed
Available online xxx turbulent mixing and heat addition was modeled by three-dimensional Reynolds averaged
Navier-Stokes equations. A realizable k-ε model was chosen to close the turbulence
Keywords: problem with the default model constants. Non-premixed combustion of hydrogen and air
Scramjet is modeled using the mixture fraction b-pdf framework. Turbulence-chemistry interactions
Strut injector are handled by a strained flamelet model. Comparisons of numerical results with experi-
Supersonic combustion mental results have demonstrated the accuracy and applicability of computational grid
Turbulent flows and a numerical scheme for hot and cold flow solutions. The shock-shear layer interaction
Mixing present within the combustor increases the local turbulent intensity and has a positive
CFD effect on mixing. The mixing efficiency obtained with improved strut injector is compared
with the basic strut. Improved strut injection scheme showed a mixing efficiency of >95%
with a 45% reduction in length. Further combustion efficiency is calculated in the
streamwise direction and plot follows the similar trend as the mixing efficiency. The
proposed modification of strut geometry showed improved mixing and combustion
performance.
© 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

realization of Scramjet technology [1]. Combustion in super-

Introduction
An air-breathing propulsion system is significantly lighter
than solid and liquid propellant-based rocket prolusion sys-
tems because it uses atmospheric air as an oxidizer. Among
the available methods of powering a hypersonic vehicle, su-
personic combustion ramjet (Scramjet) has received an
increasing attention as a future power source of the hyper-
sonic vehicle and significant efforts have concentrated on the
sonic flows is essential when flight Mach number (Ma) exceeds
6 so that the vehicle can handle resulting temperature and
pressure fields [2]. Under these conditions, the available time
for mixing, combustion, and heat release are very short,
usually a few milliseconds. Therefore, efficient mixing, flame
stabilization, thermal choking by uncontrolled heat release,
and completion of combustion within the combustor length,
need to be handled effectively so that efficient combustion is
guaranteed. Reduced chemical time scales are achieved by

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aravindvashita@gmail.com (S. Aravind), rajiv@bitmesra.ac.in (R. Kumar).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
0360-3199/© 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
2 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx

using hydrogen, a fuel with high heat of combustion and very

short ignition delay [3]. Thus, a strategy to improve mixing
efficiency is required for enhancing the efficiency of hydrogen
combustion in supersonic flow conditions.
Wall injection [4e7] and strut injection [8e15] of hydrogen
fuel are the two main injection strategies in Scramjets and has
been investigated extensively to improve mixing and com-
bustion performance within the supersonic combustor. Be-
tween them, wall injection suffers from significant flow
blockage due to the formation of a bow shock [16]. On the
other hand, fuel injection coaxial to the incoming air results in
uniform dispersion of fuel [17]. For this purpose, a wedge-
shaped strut is placed in the flow of air and fuel is injected
from the downstream edge. The strut is also a natural flame-
holder [18].
Experimental investigation of combustion of hydrogen
injected parallel to supersonic airstream through strut has
been investigated at the Institute of Chemical Propulsion, DLR
[18,19] using a laboratory supersonic combustor having one-
sided divergent wall as shown in Fig. 1. Preheated air is
expanded through a Laval nozzle and attains Ma ¼ 2.0 at the
inlet to the combustor section. Hydrogen fuel is injected at
Ma ¼ 1.0 parallel to the air stream. Spark plug was used for
igniting the fuel-rich hydrogen-oxygen mixture. The super-
sonic combustion facility is capable of running for 3e10 sec-
onds. Schlieren photographs without reactions and with
reactions were taken at the wedge base. OH intensity spectra
measured along the combustor centerline was used as an in-
dicator of regions of ignition and burning regions.
Computational predictions of Scramjet are relatively cost
effective for design and analysis purposes. Accordingly,
experimental data obtained in the DLR Scramjet combustion
facility has been used extensively in subsequent numerical
studies by several researchers [20e25].
Oevermann [20] conducted numerical investigation on a 2D
combustor model for the combustor investigated at DLR Fig. 1 e Geometric details of (a) 3-D model (b) combustor,
[18,19]. In this investigation k-ε model was used for turbulence and (c) strut.
modeling and coupling between the turbulence. b-pdf and
laminar flamelet model is used to understand the chemistry of
reacting flows. The numerically predicted profiles of pressure, combustion was made by Ingenito and Bruno [28]. The
velocity and temperature were compared with the experi- assumption of flamelet model for supersonic combustion is
mental results obtained at DLR [18,19]. Chobey and Pandey valid within the regime Da>1 and Ka<1, where chemical re-
[22,23] investigated the effect of two struts on mixing and actions are rapid. Here, Da is the Damkohler number and Ka is
combustion in a supersonic combustor. The mixing is found to Karlovitz number.
improve when the two struts is placed parallel to the free Kumaran and Babu [29] investigated the influence of
stream with no angle of attack. Optimization of the strut po- chemical kinetics on the predictions of a computational fluid
sition in a three strut configuration for maximum thrust and dynamic model of hydrogen-air Scramjet. As expected, they
maximum combustion efficiency has been investigated by found that multi-step chemical kinetics accurately captures
Kumar et al. [26]. In another work by Chobey and Pandey [27], the trends in experimental data, especially for the prediction
the authors investigated the effect of multi-strut and wall of ignition and induction distances. Gerlinger and Brugge-
injection scheme on the performance of the Scramjet mann [30] numerically investigated the mixing in planar su-
combustor. The results obtained reveal that the collaboration personic flows when hydrogen is injected using the strut
of multi-strut along with 2 wall injectors' improves the effi- injectors. They showed that upon increasing the lip thickness,
ciency of scramjet as compared to other multi-strut and wall the mixing layer thickness also increases due to the combined
injection scheme. This combination achieves higher pene- effect of increased dispersion of hydrogen at the strut outer
tration height which will improve a wider temperature and wall and stronger shocks.
robust combustion area adjacent to the wall. Theoretical Mixing is the longest process that occurs within the su-
study on the existence of flamelet mode in supersonic personic combustor [31]. Hence, the present investigation

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Table 1 e Summarizes the operating conditions

considered for this study. These conditions have also
been used in the experiments reported in Refs. [18,19].
Parameters Air Hydrogen
Ma 2.0 1.0
u (m/s) 730 1200
T (K) 340 250
p (kPa) 100 100
r (kg/m3) 1.002 0.097
YO 2 0.232 0
YN 2 0.736 0
YH 2 O 0.036 0
YH 2 0 1
k (m2 =s2 Þ 10 2400
ε (m2 =s3 ) 650 108

Computational model and numerical

methodology

The flow field involving high-speed turbulent mixing and heat

Fig. 2 e Enlarged view of finest grid obtained after several
adaptations for (a) strut (b) modified strut.
deals with improving mixing and thereby reducing the length
to achieve complete mixing. Dimotakis [32] observed that
mixing in injections parallel to the flow of supersonic air is
improved by the generation of streamwise vortices. This
observation has motivated the present work and has been
used here to modify the injection scheme followed in a con-
ventional strut injector. The effect on mixing is discussed
quantitatively in terms of mixing efficiency and total pressure
loss. Results are based on the predictions of a computational
model implemented for the DLR combustor.
addition was modeled by three-dimensional Reynolds aver-
aged Navier-Stokes equations [33] using Ansys-Fluent solver.
This solver is the finite volume method with finite element
discretization of geometry. The RANS equations are selected
for the present numerical calculations as they allow calcula-
tions on a coarser mesh and permit the simplification of
steady flow when compared with the other numerical
methods, namely detached eddy simulation, large eddy
simulation [34] and direct numerical simulation [35]. A real-
izable k-ε model was chosen to close the turbulence problem
with default model constants. This model is also considered
adequate for the predictions of the flow field of interest in this
study [20].
Non-premixed combustion of hydrogen and air is modeled
using the mixture fraction-b pdf framework. Turbulence-
chemistry interactions [36] are handled by a strained flame-
let model following the recommendations of previous re-
searchers [20,37]. The assumptions in the flamelet model are,
the chemical time scale is small compared to the smallest
turbulent time scale and the length scale of flame are short
compared to the smallest turbulent eddies. In the flamelet
regime turbulent flame is regarded as an ensemble of steady
laminar diffusion flamelet structure embedded in a turbulent

Fig. 3 e Static pressure variations along axis in streamwise direction for (a) strut (b) modified strut.

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
4 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2 e Summary of grid independence study.

Grid Level Basic Strut Injector Modified Strut Injector
Ncells Refinement Ratio Pmax (kPa) Ncells Refinement Ratio Pmax (kPa)
1 585995 e 207 641529 e 167
2 1286914 2.2 208 1117240 1.74 433
3 2236086 1.74 208 2021807 1.81 440

flow field. This allows the conservation equations to combine
the diffusion and reaction terms into a single entity called the
flamelet, which is transported convectively by turbulent flow.
Closure to the reaction term typically invokes a presumed pdf
model, tied to conservation equations for the variance of
mixture fraction and progress variable [38]. The flamelet li-
brary is generated by using a reaction mechanism of Maas and
Warntz [39] consisting of 9 species and 19 reactions.
shock/boundary layer interaction requires extremely fine
grid near a wall to resolve the complex phenomenon prop-
erly. This results in additional computational cost and is out
of scope for the present study. The focus of the present
steady is on the mixing and reaction that occurs some short
distance downstream of the injector in the wake of the
wedge. The physics involved in the mixing/reaction in the

Computational domain

Three-dimensional domain used in the present computations

is based on the DLR combustor, as described further. The
combustor is 300 mm long with cross-section of 45  50 mm2
and 45  62 mm2 at the inlet and exit stations, respectively. It
is shown in Fig. 1(a), (b) and (c). The upper wall of the
combustor is diverged at 3 to the long axis. A strut is mounted
in the combustor such that its leading edge is located 35 mm
downstream of the inlet for combustion air. The strut is
32 mm long, with a half-cone angle of 6 . Hydrogen is injected
from the base of the strut through 15 holes, each of 1 mm
diameter.
Where, Ma is the Mach number, u is the axial velocity, T is
the temperature, p is the static pressure, r is the density, Y
represents mass fraction and subscript represent the species,
k is the turbulent kinetic energy, and ε is the turbulent dissi-
pation rate.

Grid convergence and boundary conditions

A structured grid composed of hexahedral cells was

employed throughout for discrete calculations of the flow
field using finite volume formulation. In order to select the
required grid density, the conventional strut injection
scheme was considered and solutions were first obtained on
a coarse grid capable of resolving the basic features of the
geometric configuration and flow field. The course grid
resulted in 585995 elements and large numbers of cells were
clustered near strut base. Two successively finer grids were
then constructed by refining near hydrogen inlet and shear
layer so that the flow features dominated by the sonic fuel jet
and mixing in the shear layer region could be resolved. Since
a shock train throughout the length of combustor charac-
terizes the flow, the resulting sharp gradients in the flow
were further resolved by solution-based refinement in a
selected range of values of the pressure gradient. Similar
steps were taken to obtain the required grid density for the
modified injection scheme. The boundary layer develops
along the wall which will squeeze the flow path and affect the
shock pattern and velocity profile. Although all these may Fig. 4 e Static pressure variation for (a) basic strut geometry
have an influence on mixing efficiency, the resolution of at bottom wall, and (b) axis in streamwise direction.

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

near field is relatively independent of the top and bottom
wall behavior. Therefore, boundary layers developed on the
solid walls are not resolved. The final cell count and pre-
dictions of maximum pressure are summarized in Table 2
yþ<70 is maintained near the strut wall. The finest grid
used in computations is shown in Fig. 2a for conventional
and in Fig. 2b for the modified injection scheme, respectively.
All contour plots shown in the present study is obtained from
z plane in the cross-stream direction located at a distance of
22.5 mm in the z direction perpendicular to the streamwise
direction.Where, Ncells is the number of cells present in the
three-dimensional grid.
Streamwise profiles of static pressure along the centerline
(y ¼ 25 mm) is shown in Fig. 3 for the three successively
refined grids. It is observed that the predictions on the second
and third grid levels (intermediate and fine grid) are in close
agreement with each other. Thus, the fine grid requires no
additional refinement or coarsening. All the results reported
in this paper are obtained using the fine grid.
The inlet condition for air and hydrogen are fixed and the
required values of variables are given in Table 1. Flow vari-
ables at the combustor outlet are extrapolated from the inte-
rior of the domain, while no-slip boundary condition is
prescribed for all solid surfaces. Wall temperature is fixed at
300 K. Standard wall functions are employed at the walls to
appropriately model the turbulence functions.

Fig. 5 e Velocity profiles at different stream wise location of Fig. 6 e Velocity profiles at different stream wise location of
non-reacting flows (a) x ¼ 78 mm (b) x ¼ 233 mm. reacting flows (a) x ¼ 78 mm (b) x ¼ 207 mm.

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
6 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Numerical solution

Computations were performed using 8-process parallel

version of ANSYS-Fluent 17.0 in double precision. Pressure-
velocity coupling is achieved through coupled solver. All
other equations are discretized with second order. The equa-
tions are solved until the residuals are below the accepted
limit. Mass and heat imbalance were also checked and com-
putations were terminated only when the imbalance was <5%
for the smallest inlet value.

Validation

Numerical calculations are categorized in two parts. In the

first part numerical scheme employed is verified through grid
independence study and validated by comparing numerical
results with experimental result. In this section computa-
tional result is compared with shadowgraph, pressure mea-
surements, velocity measurements from LDV, and
temperature measurements from Cars (coherent anti-raman
spectroscopy). From the contour plot it is observed that the
shock pattern observed to be consistent with the shock
pattern observed from shadowgraph; however the calculated
position of shockwaves is slightly shifted downstream as
compared with the experimental observations.
Numerically predicted values of static pressure along
centerline at y ¼ 25 mm and lower wall at y ¼ 0 mm are pre-
sented in Fig. 4. The peak value of pressure at x ¼ 110 mm along
centerline is slightly underestimated and the curve is slightly
shifted further downstream along the streamwise direction.
Numerically predicted velocity profiles at different streamwise
location are compared with experimental results obtained at
same location in Fig. 5. Near the strut base at x ¼ 78 mm
computational result predicts a lower value for minimum ve-
locity. Numerically predicted velocity profiles obtained further
downstream is consistent with the profiles obtained
experimentally.
The reason for discrepancy might be due to following
reasons. The shock pattern obtained numerically may not be
consistent with the experimental observation. Numerically
predicted location of shock reflection at wall and shear layer
might have shifted downstream compared to experimental
observation. The surface roughness of the walls is not
accounted in numerical calculations. The boundary layer near
solid walls is not resolved well in numerical calculations.
Shockwave-boundary layer interactions and other physical
details of the flow (near wall and due to averaging of instan-
taneous values) were not captured by k-ε model.
The distribution of velocity at different streamwise location
for reacting flows is presented in Fig. 6. Numerically predicted
velocity along streamwise axis shows a strong deceleration
near strut base and a higher acceleration far downstream. This
observation is also made in stream wise plot at x ¼ 78 mm and at
x ¼ 207 mm. The reason for discrepancy could be due to wider
combustion zone near base of the wedge and narrowed

Fig. 7 e Temperature variations at different streamwise

direction for reacting flows (a) x ¼ 78 mm (b) x ¼ 125 mm (c)
x ¼ 233 mm.

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Fig. 8 e (a) Experimentally obtained shadowgraph [20] (b) contour lines of pressure and (c) contour lines of density obtained
in non-reacting flows with basic strut.

combustion zone far downstream at x ¼ 180 mm in numerical
calculations as compared to experimental observations. These
variations in results as compared to experimental were also
observed by other researchers as well [22,40,41]. Numerically
predicted distribution of static temperature at different
streamwise location is compared with the experimental results
in Fig. 7. Numerical calculations predict a rapid heat release
near strut base at x ¼ 78 mm. The distribution obtained further
downstream is consistent with the experimental observations.
Results and discussion
Flow features without reaction
High-speed flow inside the scramjet combustor is complex
and is dominated by several flow features such as multiple
shockwaves traveling through the channel, shear layer be-
tween air and hydrogen jet, shock-shear layer interaction,
shock-shock interaction and formation of vortices. High-
speed air flowing at Mach 2.0 parallel to the streamwise di-
rection, on hitting the tip of the strut gets deflected away from
the flow direction and gets compressed leading to the for-
mation of the shock wave. Air is turned towards the stream-
wise axis after passing through an expansion wave at the tip
of strut base. The experimental shadowgraph [20] is compared
with numerically predicted contours of pressure and density
in Fig. 8. The numerically predicted results show all the flow
features seen in the experiment. Recirculation zone is formed
at both ends of strut base, which helps in mixing of air and
fuel. A shear layer is formed at the interface of air and
hydrogen stream. The flow within the shear layer is deceler-
ated to subsonic speed due to formation of eddies and mixing.
Hydrogen jet losses its velocity due to entrainment of air to

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
8 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 9 e Geometric details of strut injector.

maintain constant velocity. The shock reflected from the
upper and lower walls is reflected from the shear layer at
xz100 mm and deflected at xz180 mm where the flow is
supersonic. The interaction of shock with the shear layer in-
duces additional kinetic energy of turbulence and turbulence
intensity, which enhances the mixing between air and
hydrogen.
The strut in the middle of the channel performs multiple
functions such as it compresses the oncoming air by the
generation of shock, injects and distributes fuel, and acts as a
flame holder. Hence, a strut is a key design aspect whose ge-
ometry controls the shock pattern, vortex formation which
affects mixing and combustion. In the present work, strut is
modified as shown in Fig. 9 to see its effect on mixing. Modi-
fied strut geometry is presented in Fig. 9 where hydrogen is
injected at 1.5 mm above and below the axis alternatively. The
length and strut angle is same as basic strut configuration.
The axial location of the modified strut in the combustor is

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

Fig. 10 e Density gradient Magnitude obtained for (a) basic strut geometry and (b) modified strut geometry.

same as that of basic strut. Between every jet, there is a slot
3 mm wide whose lower wall tapers down until it reaches the
axis of the strut. Air is allowed to pass in these slots. Density
gradient presented in Fig. 10 for both types of the injector
shows a wider shear layer for modified strut injector, indi-
cating a wider spreading of hydrogen in the transverse di-
rection, which aids mixing. A region of low pressure is created
in the wake region; this causes the shear layer from strut walls
to converge. Expansion fan is formed at the corners of the
wedge. The hydrogen jet exiting into the region of low pres-
sure is under-expanded. Therefore, it expands into a
diamond-shaped shock structure. As the shear layers curve
back and start mixing with the hydrogen jet, compression
waves are generated on each side that turn into recom-
pression shock waves. A major difference in the shock pattern
observed for both injectors is along the strut, where a weak
oblique shock is created at the tip of modified strut followed
by addition shock at xz55 mm and expansion fan at the tip of
the strut.
Flow features with reaction
Flow features with and without reaction are identical till the
base of the strut. The oncoming supersonic air stream is
compressed on passing through the shock formed at the tip of
the strut resulting in an increase in static pressure and static
temperature. Recirculation zone formed at the strut base
provides large surface area for hydrogen and air to mix and
react. Hot products trapped in the recirculation zone transfer
heat to an unreacted mixture, thus continuous stable flame is
formed at the strut base [42]. As the reaction is initiated,
pressure increases at the strut base due to heat addition.
Therefore, the shear layer originating from the strut base di-
verges at an angle slightly greater than the strut walls [21].
This can be seen in experimental shadowgraph, contour plots
of pressure and density are presented in Fig. 11. Flow regions
having large gradients of density, velocity and temperature is
separated by the shear layer. At xz 95 mm shock wave hitting
the shear layer is reflected as an expansion fan and shear layer
that determines the boundary of the wake region bend back
towards the horizontal. The shocks are not present down-
stream from this point. The reaction zone widens till
xz95 mm and narrows downstream. The flow is decelerated
till x ¼ 95 mm and accelerates afterward where the reaction
zone starts narrowing.
The region of subsonic flow is marked in the contour plot of
pressure. The contour plot of temperature, mass fraction of
proton and hydroxyl ion is presented in Fig. 12. Near the base
of the strut reaction occurs in the thin mixing layer between
air and hydrogen jet. In the vicinity of hydrogen jet, the region
is still fuel rich, hence the temperature is low which is evident
from the Fig. 7a. Further downstream entire hydrogen jet is
diffused and mixing layer widens. At xz 125 mm entire jet is
ignited and temperature reaches its maximum value. As the
flow evolves downstream little reaction occurs and tempera-
ture distribution diffuses and flattens. The region where

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
10 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 11 e (a) Experimentally obtained shadowgraph [20] (b) contour lines of pressure and (c) contour plot of density obtained
in reacting flows with basic strut.

equivalence ratio is near 1 is marked in the contour plot of
proton. The region of highest proton concentration is found
below 4 ¼ 1, where the temperature lies within 400e600 K.
This proton is completely consumed by oxygen outside the
line 4 ¼ 1 and other reactants. The hydroxyl radical is present
in the region of highest temperature. The hydroxyl radical is
mainly present along the shear layer where air entrainment
into the hydrogen jet takes place which implies that the
diffusion flame is located on the contact surface between
hydrogen jet and air [43]. The concentration of hydroxyl and
other radicals diminishes towards the end of the combustor,
indicating completion of the reaction. Similar distributions in
temperature, mass fraction of proton and hydroxyl radical is
observed for modified injector as shown in Fig. 13. The reac-
tion zone is wider for modified injector compared to the re-
action zone observed for basic strut geometry. The region of
maximum temperature and mass fraction of hydroxyl radical
is obtained at a shorter distance from the strut base and
concentration of proton, hydroxyl and other radicals di-
minishes earlier compared to results observed in basic strut.
From these observations shorter reaction zone is inferred for
modified strut geometry.
Performance parameters
Mixing process evaluated using two performance parameters
are now described. Mixing efficiency (hm ) is defined as fraction
of hydrogen mass fraction available at stoichiometric condi-
tion to the total mass fraction [44]. Comparison of mixing ef-
ficiency between planar and modified strut is presented in
Fig. 14a. Mixing is due to high level of turbulence in the shear
layer formed between the hydrogen jet and air stream.
Modified strut injector induces additional streamwise vortices
which improves mixing between hydrogen jet and air stream.
Modified strut takes about 18 mm to reach hm ¼ 1 while planar
strut takes about 33 mm. Thus, complete mixing is achieved at

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

Fig. 12 e Contour plots of (a) temperature (b) mass fraction of proton (c) mass fraction of hydroxyl radical obtained with basic
strut geometry.

shorter distance for modified strut which results in shorter rapid near the base of the strut due to mixing and shock shear
combustor length and possible reduction in weight. layer interaction. Losses in total pressure are 10% higher for
Z modified injector which indicates better mixing. The decay in
yf rudA total pressure is less rapid after xz 115 mm as mixing is
hm ¼ Z (1) complete and losses arises only due to shock which also losses
yrudA its strength downstream.
Z
Where, po rudA
ht ¼ 1  Z (2)

y;
  y  ys po inlet rudA
yf ¼
ys ð1  yÞ 1  ys ; y > ys
Where, po is the total pressure and po inlet is the total pressure
Where, A is the cross-section area of the channel. at inlet section.
For flow across shock total enthalpy, and total temperature Combustion efficiency (hc ) [44] is defined as the rate of
are conserved, while total pressure decreases after flow consumption of hydrogen fuel along the streamwise direction
passes through shock due to irreversibility [45]. Total pressure and the rate of production of water vapor. These are the two
loss is due to shock, mixing and viscous effects. Hence, as the important performance parameters that are used for charac-
mixing increases total pressure loss also increases. Total terizing the combustion processes. Equation (3) shows that for
pressure loss normalized with mass flow rate is plotted in every streamwise location certain part of injected hydrogen
Fig. 14b for both injection strategies. Total pressure loss (ht ) is mass flux is already burned. The profile of the production of

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
12 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 13 e Contour plots of (a) temperature (b) mass fraction of proton (c) mass fraction of hydroxyl radical obtained with
modified strut geometry.

Fig. 14 e (a) Mixing efficiency and (b) total pressure loss plot for basic and modified strut geometry configurations.

Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 15 e (a) Rate of production of water vapor (b) Combustion efficiency plot for basic and modified strut injection
configuration in the streamwise direction.
water vapor is presented in Fig. 15a and it is similar to the plot
of combustion efficiency presented in Fig. 15b.
In the vicinity of the strut base, air entrainment occurs in
the H2-rich wake region and ignition occurs. Combustion ef-
ficiency plot can be divided into three regions. The first region
is found in the immediate vicinity of the injector till xz78 mm
where the hydrogen-air mixture is ignited and the flame an-
chors in the recirculation zone. The curves for both the in-
jectors show an identical trend in this region as shown in the
plot of Fig. 15b. The second region is found where the gradual
consumption of hydrogen is found. This region extends till
xz90 mm and xz125 mm for basic strut configuration. In this
region, additional streamwise vortices are induced in the case
of a modified strut configuration which improves the mixing
between H2-air mixtures. Hence, consumption of hydrogen is
rapid and most of the heat addition takes place in this region.
This trend is also seen in the plot of mixing efficiency pre-
sented in Fig. 14a. The consumption of hydrogen does not vary
in the streamwise direction beyond xz125 mm for modified
strut configuration and xz200 mm for basic strut configura-
tion and it is indicated as the third region. The region where
combustion efficiency increases rapidly, heat release takes
place rapidly could be seen from the temperature contour of
the Figs. 12a and 13a.
_ H2 ðxÞ
m [1] Curran ET. Scramjet engines: the first forty years. J Propul
hc ¼ 1  (3)
_ H2 injected
m
Where, m _ H2 ðxÞ is the mass flow rate of hydrogen at a given
streamwise section and.
m_ H2 injected is the mass flow rate of hydrogen injected.
Conclusion
Numerical investigation of flow and combustion phenomenon
of hydrogen jet in supersonic air-stream is performed for su-
personic combustors having basic strut injector and modified
strut injector. RANS equation is utilized to describe flow
without reaction and coupling between turbulence and
chemistry is obtained through Pdf. Comparison of numerical
results with experimental results have demonstrated the ac-
curacy and applicability of computational grid and numerical
scheme for hot and cold flow solutions. The numerically
predicted result for both the injector configuration is
Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
13
compared and analyzed. The following conclusions are drawn
from the present studies:
 The design of fuel injectors is very crucial for the overall
performance of supersonic combustor, as fuel distribution,
shock pattern mixing and ultimately combustion is sensi-
tive to fuel injection scheme and injector geometry.
Modified strut injector geometry presently investigated
showed improved mixing performance due to the genera-
tion of additional streamwise vortices.
 The length to achieve mixing efficiency >95% is reduced by
15 mm for modified strut geometry. However, there is an
increased 10% loss in total pressure due to the generation
of vortices.
 Combustion efficiency, predicted from the rate of con-
sumption of hydrogen and the generation of water vapor
showed a similar trend.
 Proposed modified strut geometry improves mixing and
combustion performance. The length to perfect mixing is
strongly reduced.
references
Power 2001;17(6):1138e48.
[2] Heiser WH, Pratt DT. Hypersonic air-breathing propulsion.
Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics Inc.; 1994. https://doi.org/10.2514/4.470356.
[3] Roberts KN, Wilson DR, Analysis and design of a hypersonic
scramjet engine with a transition mach number of 4.00", 47th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New
Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Aerospace
Sciences Meetings 5-8th Jan 2009, Orlando, Florida. https://
doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-1255.
[4] Huang W. Transverse jet in supersonic crossflows. Aero Sci
Technol 2016;50:183e95.
[5] Huang W. Mixing enhancement strategies and their
mechanisms in supersonic flows: a brief review. Acta
Astronaut 2018;145:492e500.
[6] Choubey G, Pandey KM, Maji A, Deshamukhya T. A brief
review on the recent advances in scramjet engine. AIP Conf.
Proc. 2017;1859, 020036. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4990189.
[7] Dong H, Liu J, Chen Z. Numerical investigation of lateral jet
with supersonic reacting flow. J Spacecraft Rockets
2018;55:928e35.
14 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (xxxx) xxx
[8] Huang W. Investigation on the effect of strut configurations
and locations on the combustion performance of a typical
scramjet combustor. J Mech Sci Technol
2015;29(12):5485e96.
[9] Yan L, Liao L, Huang W, Li L. Nonlinear process in the mode
transition in typical strut-based and cavity-strut based
scramjet combustors. Acta Astronaut 2018;145:250e60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.01.061.
[10] Choubey G, Pandey KM. Investigation on the effects of
operating variables on the performance of two-strut
scramjet combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41:20753e70.
[11] Tan J, Zhang D, Lv L. A review on enhanced mixing methods
in supersonic mixing layer flows. Acta Astronaut
2018;152:310e24.
[12] Pandey KM, Roga S, Choubey G. Numerical investigation on
hydrogen-fueled scramjet combustor with parallel strut fuel
injector at a flight mach number of 6. J Appl Fluid Mech
2016;9:1215e20.
[13] Fureby C, Nordin-Bates K, Petterson K, Bresson A,
Sabelnikov V. A computational study of supersonic
combustion in strut injector and hyper mixer flow fields.
Proc Combust Inst 2015;35:2127e35.
[14] Huang W, Li ShiBin, Liu Jun, Wang ZhenGuo. Investigation on
high angle of attack characteristics of hypersonic space
vehicle. Sci China Technol Sci May 2012;55(5):1437e42.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-012-4760-6.
[15] Huang W, Wang ZhenGuo, Luo ShiBin, Liu Jun. Parametric
effects on the combustion flow field of a typical strut-based
scramjet combustor. Chin Sci Bull December
2011;56(35):3871e7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-011- 4823-
2.
[16] Pandey KM, Sivasakthivel T. Recent advances in scramjet
fuel injection - a review. Int J Chem Eng Appl 2010;1:294e301.
[17] Soni RK, De A. Investigation of strut-ramp injector in a
scramjet combustor : effect of strut geometry. J Mech Sci
Technol 2017;31:1169e79.
[18] Guerra R, Waidmann W, Laible C. An experimental
investigation of the combustion of a hydrogen jet injected
parallel in a supersonic air stream. In: 3rd International
Aerospace Planes Conference. Orlando,FL: U.S.A; 1991.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1991-5102.
[19] Waidmann W, Alff F, Brummund U, Bohm M, Clauss W,
Oschwald M. Experimental investigation of the combustion
process in a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet)
combustion chamber. In: Deutscher luft-und
raumfahrtkongreb, DGLR-Jahrestagung; 1994. 04-07
October,1994; Erlangen.
[20] Oevermann M. Numerical investigation of turbulent
hydrogen combustion in a scramjet using flamelet modeling.
Aero Sci Technol 2000;4:463e80.
[21] Genin F, Menon S. Simulation of turbulent mixing behind a
strut injector in supersonic flow. AIAA J 2010;48(3):526e39.
[22] 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(26):11455e70.
[23] 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(15):10485e500.
[24] Kummitha OR. Numerical analysis of hydrogen fuel Scramjet
combustor with turbulence development inserts and with
different turbulent models. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(9):6360e8.
[25] Kun W, Peng Z, Wei Y, Xuejun F. Computational realization
of multiple flame stabilization modes in DLR strut-injection
Please cite this article as: Aravind S, Kumar R, Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme, Inter-
national Journal of Hydrogen Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.064
hydrogen supersonic combustor. P Combust Inst 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.07.097.
[26] Kumar S, Das S, Sheelam S. Application of CFD and the
Kriging method for optimizing the performance of a generic
scramjet combustor. Acta Astronaut 2014;101:111e9.
[27] Choubey G, Pandey KM. Effect of different wall injection
schemes on the flow-field of hydrogen fuelled strut-based
scramjet combustor. Acta Astronaut 2018;145:93e104.
[28] Ingenito A, Bruno C. Physics and regimes of supersonic
combustion. AIAA J 2010;48(3):515e25.
[29] Kumaran K, Babu V. Investigation of the effect of chemistry
models on the numerical predictions of the supersonic
combustion of hydrogen. Combust Flame 2009;156(4):826e41.
[30] Gerlinger P, Bruggemann D. Numerical investigation of
hydrogen strut injections into supersonic airflows. J Propul
Power 2000;16(1):22e8.
[31] Ferri A. Mixing-controlled supersonic combustion. Annu Rev
Fluid Mech 1973;5:301e38.
[32] Dimotakis PE. Turbulent free shear layer mixing and
combustion. Washington, DC: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics; 1991. https://doi.org/10.2514/
5.9781600866104.0265.0340.
[33] Pope SB. Turbulent flows. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 2000.
[34] Shin J, Sung HG. Comparison of hybrid RANS/LES methods
for supersonic combustion in a model scramjet combustor.
In: Hoarau Y, Peng SH, Schwamborn D, Revell A, editors.
Progress in hybrid RANS-LES modelling. HRLM 2016. Notes
on numerical fluid mechanics and multidisciplinary design,
vol. 137. Cham: Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-70031-1_19.
[35] Zingg DW, Godin P. A perspective on turbulence models for
aerodynamic flows. Int J Comput Fluid Dynam
2009;23:327e35.
[36] Fulton JA, Edwards JR, Cutler A, McDaniel J, Goyne C.
Turbulence/chemistry interactions in a ramp stabilized
supersonic hydrogen-air diffusion flame. Combust Flame
2016;174:152e65.
[37] Fan Z, Liu W, Sun M, Wang Z, Zhuang F, Luo W. Theoretical
analysis of flamelet model for supersonic turbulent
combustion. Sci China Technol Sci 2012;55:193e205.
[38] Hochgreb S. Mind the gap: turbulent combustion model
validation and future needs. Proc Combust Inst 2018. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.05.003.
[39] Maas U, Warnatz J. Ignition processes in hydrogen-oxygen
mixtures. Combust Flame 1988;74:53e69.
[40] Potturi AS, Edwards JR. Hybrid large-eddy/Reynolds-
averaged Navier-Stokes simulations of flow through a model
scramjet. AIAA J 2014;52(7):1417e29.
[41] Fureby C, Fedina E, Tegner J. A computational study of
supersonic combustion behind a wedge-shaped flameholder.
Shock Waves 2014;25(1):41e50.
[42] Berglund M, Fureby C. LES of supersonic combustion in a
scramjet engine model. Proc Combust Inst 2007;31:2497e504.
[43] Lee S. Characteristics of dual transverse injection in scramjet
combustor, Part 2. Combustion J Propul Power
2006;22:1020e6.
[44] 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.
[45] Anderson JD. Fundamentals of aerodynamics. 3rd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill series in aeronautical and aerospace
engineering; 2001 (Chapter 8).