Proceedings

of the
Combustion
Institute
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 2497–2504
www.elsevier.com/locate/proci

LES of supersonic combustion in a scramjet

engine model
a,b,* a
M. Berglund , C. Fureby
a
Weapons and Protection Division, Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), SE–164 90 Stockholm, Sweden
b
Division of Fluid Mechanics, Department of Energy Sciences, Lund Institute of Technology, Box 118,
SE–221 00 Lund, Sweden

Abstract

In this study, Large Eddy Simulation (LES) has been used to examine supersonic flow and combustion
in a model scramjet combustor. The LES model is based on an unstructured finite volume discretization,
using total variational diminishing flux reconstruction, of the filtered continuity, momentum, enthalpy, and
passive/reactive scalar equations, used to describe the combustion process. The configuration used is sim-
ilar to the laboratory scramjet at the Institute for Chemical Propulsion of the German Aerospace Center
(DLR) and consists of a one-sided divergent channel with a wedge-shaped flameholder at the base of which
hydrogen is injected. Here, we investigate supersonic flow with hydrogen injection and supersonic flow with
hydrogen injection and combustion. For the purpose of validation, the LES results are compared with
experimental data for velocity and temperature at different cross-sections. In addition, qualitative compar-
isons are also made between predicted and measured shadowgraph images. The LES computations are
capable of predicting both the non-reacting and reacting flowfields reasonably well—in particular we notice
that the LES model identifies and differentiates between peculiarities of the flowfields found in the
experiments.
 2006 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Large Eddy Simulation; Flamelet model; Supersonic combustion; Scramjet

1. Introduction an efficient propulsion system. Turbojets and rock-

The current road-map of aerospace technology
development contains several areas of application
for hypersonic flight vehicles such as long-range
passenger transport, reusable launch vehicles for
space applications, and long-range missiles. The
successful development of such vehicles would
depend, to a large extent, on the development of
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +46 8 5550 4144.
E-mail address: magnus.berglund@foi.se (M.
Berglund).
et engines, used for high-speed aircraft and space
launcher and missile systems, respectively, are
unattractive from technical, economical as well as
safety points-of-view. The new pulse detonation
technology may hold promise for the future but
needs to mature. The preferred propulsion system
for flight in the supersonic (3 < Ma < 5) regime is
a ramjet and beyond that, in the hypersonic
(5 < Ma < 15) regime, is a ramjet with supersonic
combustion, i.e. a scramjet. Due to the supersonic
flow speed (and hence short residence times) in
the combustor of a scramjet, problems arise in the
mixing of fuel and oxidizer to form a combustible

1540-7489/$ - see front matter  2006 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.proci.2006.07.074
2498 M. Berglund, C. Fureby / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 2497–2504
mixture, flame anchoring and stability, thermal
choking due to uncontrolled heat release, and com-
pletion of combustion within a finite length com-
bustor. A further complication is that the
scramjet combustion experiments are very compli-
cated, and only a few limited runtime facilities are
available. The most cost-effective way of investigat-
ing scramjet combustion therefore lies in the use of
computational fluid dynamics (CFD), provided
that the models have the required fidelity.
In high-speed turbulent combustion, density
variations arise not only from exothermicity but
also from viscous heating, compression, and
expansions associated with the high-speed. The
quantity that distinguishes these flows from low-
speed flows is the dilatation, $ Æ v. In low-speed
turbulent combustion the influence of pressure
and velocity on $ Æ v can virtually be neglected,
and under these circumstances $ Æ v is due only
to the exothermicity, whereas in high-speed com-
bustion all of the above features play a role. As
the speed increases the kinetic energy dominates
the enthalpy so that the exothermicity adds rela-
tively smaller amounts of energy, and accordingly,
the influence of combustion becomes less impor-
tant. The description of chemical kinetics is com-
plicated, involving either a large number of species
or extensive simplifications resulting in reduced
reaction mechanisms. Moreover, chemical kinetics
and species diffusion influence each other and
occur mainly on micro-scales together with mix-
ing, counter-gradient diffusion, flame-generated
turbulence, and various types of instabilities.
A promising method for predicting scramjet
combustion is Large Eddy Simulation (LES) [1–3]
in which the largest turbulence scales are explicitly
computed and only the small, low-energy modes
are modeled (where the assumption of local isotro-
py is expected to hold better than for the largest
scales). The direct computation of the large energy
containing eddies (which are geometry and flow
dependent) gives LES more generality than Rey-
nolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) [1,4] in
which all turbulent scales are modeled. At present,
the use of LES to investigate non-reacting and sub-
sonic reacting flows is becoming established
whereas the application of LES to supersonic react-
ing flows has so far been limited. As for low-speed
flows, mixing and chemical kinetics occur mainly
on the subgrid level, and will require modeling [5].
In the present study, the experimental work of
Waidmann et al. [6–9] is used as reference and to
provide further validation of the supersonic LES
combustion model developed and used here. The
laboratory test rig consists of a rectilinear com-
bustion chamber with a slanted upper wall and a
wedge-shaped flameholder at the base of which
gaseous hydrogen, H2, is injected. Here, we use
two flamelet models of different fidelity to exam-
ine the supersonic mixing and combustion taking
place downstream of the wedge, and to explore
the complex flow physics and chemistry in this
simplified scramjet combustor. Different resolu-
tions have been used and the similarity of the pre-
dictions and the experiments suggests that the
physical processes are reasonably well described.
Previous computational studies of this laboratory
scramjet engine includes a RANS-based study [10]
and two LES-based studies [11,12].
2. LES modeling of supersonic combustion
The governing equations for turbulent reacting
flows are the reactive Navier–Stokes Equations
(NSE). Due to the variety of scales, in particular
the disparity of flow and chemistry scales, and
the large number of species involved in combus-
tion of practical fuels, these equations must be
simplified. In LES one usually choose between:
(i) reduced or global reaction mechanisms with
Arrhenius rate expressions in the framework of
Implicit LES [13], (ii) flamelet models, in which
reaction is assumed to occur in thin layers, (iii) lin-
ear eddy models, using a grid-within-the-grid
method to solve 1D species equations with full
resolution, (iv) thickened flame models (TFM),
and (v) probability density function (PDF) meth-
ods. See Poinsot and Veynante [1] for a review.
Bray [14] argues that the most probable range
for scramjet combustion is within the flamelet
regime, which is further supported by an analysis
by Waidman et al. [9], based on experimental data
from the laboratory scramjet engine used here.
Based on the LES results the ratio between the
integral length scale and the laminar flame thick-
ness is estimated to be 200 and the ratio between
the rms velocity and the laminar flame speed to be
5, so that Ka  1, Da  40, and Re  1. This
flow case is thus in the corrugated flamelet regime.
In essence, the flamelet assumption allows decou-
pling of the chemistry from the fluid mechanics
and the scale separation enables pre-computing
the chemistry as parameterized by one or more
passive and/or reactive scalars. Two flamelet mod-
els of different fidelity will be used here in conjunc-
tion with the two-step global reaction mechanism
of Rogers and Chinitz [15].
2.1. One-equation flamelet model
In the one-equation flamelet model the filtered
NSE [16] are solved together with a passive scalar
(here, we use the mixture fraction) used to param-
eterize the chemistry,
ot ðqÞ þ r  ðq~vÞ ¼ 0
ot ðq~vÞ þ r  ðq~v~vÞ ¼ rp þ r  ðS  BÞ
ð1Þ
~ þ r  ðq~vEÞ
ot ðqEÞ ~ v þ h  bE Þ
~ ¼ r  ððp1 þ SÞ~
ot ðq~zÞ þ r  ðq~v~zÞ ¼ r  ðDz r~zÞ  r  bz
 M. Berglund, C. Fureby / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 2497–2504
where q is the density, v the velocity, p the pres-
sure, S the viscous stress tensor, B the subgrid
stress tensor, E ¼ h  p=q þ 12 v2 the total ener-
gy (where h is the mixture enthalpy), h the heat
flux vector, bE the subgrid flux vector of E, z the
mixture fraction, and bz the subgrid flux vector
of z. The subgrid stress tensor B and subgrid flux
vectors bE and bz are here closed using the mixed
model [17] in which
~ D;
B ¼ qð~v~v  ~v~vÞ þ 23qkI  2lk D
bE ¼ qð~vE ~  lk rE;
~  ~vEÞ ~ ð2Þ
bz ¼ qð~v~z  ~v~zÞ  lk r~z;
where the subgrid kinetic energy and viscosity are
modeled by k ¼ cI D2 kDk ~ 2 and lk ¼ qcD D2 kDk,~
~
respectively, where D is the rate-of-strain tensor
and the subscript D denotes the deviatoric part.
The species mass fractions, Yi, are assumed
to be functions of z and the dissipation rate, v,
such that Yi = Yi(z,v). Then, the filtered mass
Rfractions, Y~ i , can be defined by Y~ i ¼
1 R1
0 0
Y i ðz; vÞpðz; vÞ dz dv, where p(z,v) is the sub-
grid probability density function (PDF) [18].
Assuming that z and v are uncorrelated and that
the effects of the subgrid fluctuations in v can be
neglected pðz; vÞ ¼ pðzÞdðv  ~vÞ, where d is the
Dirac function. We further assume a Beta distri-
bution for z, parameterized by ~z and its variance
ð~z00 Þ2  cz D2 kr~zk2 . In addition, ~v is modeled by
v ¼ 2cv DkDkð~
~ ~ z00 Þ2 . The model coefficients are ob-
tained from an inertial subrange behavior
[17,19]. The flamelet library includes H2, O2,
OH, H2O, and N2 [15], and is tabulated for differ-
ent values of z and v. The thermodynamic model
consists of the equation-of-state for an ideal gas
mixture and the equation-of-state for the enthalpy
of the mixture. Diffusive transport properties
(using a Fickian scheme for ~z), mixture viscosity
(using Sutherland’s law), and thermal conduction
(modeled similarly) are included, whilst thermal
diffusion is neglected.
2.2. Two-equation flamelet model
In the two-equation flamelet model an attempt
is made to resolve the limitations of the one-equa-
tion flamelet model, which are caused by the lack
of information about the chemical reactions and
the chemical variations perpendicular to r~z. The
remedy is to use both a passive scalar, ~z, and a
reactive scalar, ~f, so that the model consists of
Eq. (1) supplemented with
ot ðq~fÞ þ r  ðq~v~fÞ ¼ r  ðDf r~fÞ  r  bf  x_ f :
ð3Þ
Following Duwig and Fureby [20] the reaction
rate, x_ f , and diffusive term on the right hand side
of Eq. (3) are regrouped as a filtered flame-front
2499
displacement term describing the propagation of
f at the laminar flame speed Su = Su(z), i.e.
r  ðqDrfÞ  x_ f ¼ qS u jrfj. The flame-front
displacement term can be expanded as
qS u jrfj ¼ hqS u iR ¼ hqS u iNjrfj, where R ¼ jrfj
is the flame surface density, N ¼ R=jrfj the
flame-wrinkling, and hqS u i ¼ qS u jrfj=R is the
surface filtered consumption rate, so that the fil-
tered transport equation for ~f finally becomes
ot ðq~fÞ þ r  ðq~v~fÞ ¼ r  bf  hqS u iNjrfj: ð4Þ
In order to close Eq. (4) sub-models for bf, N, and
ÆqSuæ must be provided. Following Fureby [21] the
fractal flame-wrinkling (FFW) model is used for N
together with the mixed model for bz and bf. In
the FFW model N is interpreted as the ratio be-
tween the wrinkled and undisturbed flame surface,
N = (eo/ei)D2, where ei the inner cut-off, and D
the fractal dimension. In [21] ei is defined as the
subgrid wrinkling length scale that is here evaluat-
ed from the curvature tensor, so that
ei ¼ S 0u D=v0 C, where C ¼ CðD=d0u ; v0 =S 0u Þ is the effi-
ciency function [22], v 0 the subgrid velocity, d0u the
laminar flame thickness, and S 0u the unstrained
laminar flame speed so that N ¼ ðCv0 =S 0u ÞD2 . Fol-
lowing [23], the fractal dimension is modeled by
D ¼ 2:00=ðv0 =S 0u þ 1Þ þ 2:35=ðS 0u =v0 þ 1Þ and we
further assume that the inner structure of the reac-
tion zone is unaffected by the turbulence so that
hqS u i  qu S u ð~zÞ. The thermodynamic model and
the diffusive transport properties are included in
a manner similar to the one-equation flamelet
model.
3. Numerical methods
A finite volume (FV) method for arbitrary cell-
shapes together with an explicit, fully compress-
ible solver is used to solve the governing equations
for the reactive LES models. The code employs a
colocated cell-centered variable arrangement and
the semi-discretized LES equations are obtained
from Gauss theorem. To complete the FV-discret-
ization the fluxes need to be reconstructed from
variables at adjacent cells. High-order reconstruc-
tion of all convective fluxes, using a second order
(flux limiter-based) TVD scheme and central dif-
ferencing of the inner derivatives in the viscous
and subgrid fluxes gives nominally second order
accuracy in space. The time-integration is fully
explicit using the second order accurate TVD
Runge–Kutta scheme of Gottlieb and Shu [24].
The governing equations are thus solved with full
coupling between the equations. An issue for LES
is how the subgrid model interacts with the lead-
ing order truncation error. In [25] this aspect has
been studied, in the context of implicit LES, using
modified equation analysis. These results are
2500 M. Berglund, C. Fureby / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 2497–2504
extendable to reacting LES and for the present
model we find that the subgrid model, e.g.
~ D , and the leading
B ¼ qð~v~v  ~v ~vÞ þ 23 qkI  2lk D
order truncation error, e.g. T ¼ qðC  ðr~vÞT þ
ðr~vÞ  CT þ v2 ðr~v  dÞðr~v  dÞÞ, where C and
v are functions of the flux limiter C, may overlap
in regions with large gradients. The scale similar-
ity term in the subgrid model is, however, the
dominant term and since C „ 0 only in highly
localized regions we do not expect the leading
order truncation error to have significant impact
on the solutions.
4. Experimental setup and computational details
A schematic of the scramjet experimental facil-
ity, [6–9], is presented in Fig. 1. Preheated air is
expanded through a laval nozzle and enters the
combustor section at Ma = 2.0. The combustor
has a width of 40 mm and a height of 50 mm at
the entrance and a divergence angle of the upper
channel wall of three degrees to compensate for
the expansion of the boundary layer. A wedge-
shaped strut is placed in the combustion chamber
downstream of the nozzle. Just downstream of the
nozzle the height of the 32 mm long strut is 6 mm.
Along the first 10 cm downstream of the nozzle,
the side walls and the upper wall are made from
quartz glass to allow optical access and to mini-
mize the reflection of scattered light on the wall
opposite the observation window. Hydrogen
(H2) is injected at Ma = 1.0 through a row of 15
holes, 1.0 mm in diameter and 2.4 mm apart, in
the strut base. Typical mass flows in the experi-
ments were varied between 1.0 and 1.5 kg/s for
the air and between 1.5 and 4.0 g/s for H2, which
correspond to equivalence ratios between 0.034
and 0.136, respectively. The hydrogen is injected
at ambient temperature and pressure, i.e. at
T = 250 K and p = 105 Pa, whereas the air was
injected at T = 340 K and p = 105 Pa. Combus-
tion was initiated by pre-burning of a small
amount of O2 in a H2 tube by a spark. The exper-
iments include LDV and PIV measurements of
velocity, CARS measurements of temperature,
OH-LIF for mapping regions of combustion,
and schlieren and shadowgraph photography in
order to characterize the flow and combustion
dynamics.
100
50
air, T=340 K hydrogen, T=250 K
Ma=2.0 Ma=1.0
25
109
340
Fig. 1. Schematic of the supersonic combustion cham-
ber and the coordinate system used.
The computational configuration include three
holes together with imposed periodicity in the
spanwise direction. Two grids with approximately
3.2 and 6.4 million cells are used for the calcula-
tions. The grids are clustered towards the upper,
lower, and wedge walls, as well as in the wake
region and the shear layer region to resolve the
mixing. There are no significant differences
between the results for first and second order sta-
tistical moments on the two meshes.
Dirichlet boundary conditions are used for all
variables at the inlet and at the H2-jets at the base
of the strut. At the outlet, all variable values are
extrapolated from the interior. At the upper, low-
er, and strut walls, zero Dirichlet conditions are
applied to the velocity whereas zero Neumann
conditions are applied to all other variables.
To handle the near-wall resolution problem
subgrid wall-models [26], in which lk is modified
for the flow to satisfy a logarithmic velocity distri-
bution, are used.
All computations are initialized with the state
of the incoming air and are continued until the
second order statistical moments have converged;
after about five flow through-times.
5. Results and discussion
In [12] the flow without and with H2 injection
in the scramjet engine model was examined using
LES and here we continue this study by further
examining the case with H2 injection and with
H2 injection and combustion. Inert H2 injection
adds significant complexity to the flow in the
scramjet combustor since H2 has a considerably
lower molar mass than air, which makes mixing
an important process in establishing the condi-
tions for scramjet combustion.
Figure 2 presents a perspective view of the flow
together with a qualitative comparison of experi-
mental and numerical shadowgraph images from
the cases with inert H2 injection (without combus-
tion). With inert H2 injection, oblique shocks are
formed at the tip of the wedge that are later reflect-
ed by the upper and lower walls before interacting
further with the unsteady, partly H2 filled, wake.
Together with the slightly bent expansion fan com-
ing off the base of the wedge this causes a charac-
teristic shock-wave pattern in the downstream
region. At the upper and lower walls, the boundary
layer is affected, at least locally, by the reflected
(mm) oblique shocks. These local modifications involve
thickening of the boundary layer, increased rms-
pressure fluctuations, and elevated wall tempera-
tures. With the exception of the reflected shocks
interacting with and further reflecting off the partly
H2 filled wake, these structures are similar to the
ones found without H2 injection, cf. [8,9,12]. The
boundary layer on the wedge surface separates at
the base and a shear layer is formed. This shear
 M. Berglund, C. Fureby / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 2497–2504 2501

shocks (reflecting off the walls) pass through the

accelerating wake. The resemblance between the
predicted and the experimental shadowgraph
images is good.
Figure 3 shows a perspective view of the react-
ing flow together with a qualitative comparison of
experimental and numerical shadowgraph images
from the case with H2 injection (at 1.50 g/s) fol-
lowed by combustion. With H2 injection and com-
bustion the expansion fans at the upper and lower
corners of the wedge essentially vanish, whereas
the recompression shocks become weaker as com-
pared to the inert H2 injection case. With combus-
tion the recirculation region becomes longer and
wider, and serves as a flameholder for the H2 dif-
fusion flame. Moreover, from the LES, the peak
reverse velocity (in the recirculation region) and
the base pressure increase as compared to the inert

Fig. 2. Non-reacting case: (a) perspective view in terms

of contours of the axial momentum on the back plane
and an iso-surface of the H2 mass fraction; (b) exper-
imental shadowgraph; and (c) numerical shadowgraph
(essentially r2 q) image.

layer is naturally unstable and is therefore prone to

break-up and develops into Kelvin–Helmholtz
(KH) structures. Because of the one-sided diver-
gent channel the upper reflecting shock hits the
H2 filled wake further downstream than the lower
shock, causing an asymmetric flow field through
which the KH modes are amplified. This, in turn,
results in shedding and periodically bent structures
whereby air and H2 are mixed by advection. By
comparing the LES results with the Rayleigh scat-
tering images in [8,9] (not shown) we find very
good agreement for the mixing pattern. It is impor-
tant also to notice that compressibility leads to
reduced shear layer growth, affecting the forma-
Fig. 3. Reacting case: (a) perspective view in terms of
tion and subsequent break-up of large coherent contours of the axial momentum on the back plane and
structures. In addition, the reflected shock waves on the two cross planes, contours of the temperature, an
are deflected by the hydrogen jets. After some dis- iso-surface of the flame and an iso-surface of the H2
tance the flow in the wake of the wedge is acceler- mass fraction; (b) experimental shadowgraph; and
ated back to supersonic speed and the subsequent (c) numerical shadowgraph (essentially r2 q) image.
2502 M. Berglund, C. Fureby / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 2497–2504

H2 injection case, which is supported by the exper- a x/D=22.00 x/D=34.50

x/D=20.83
iments [8]. The shear layers, originating at the 0.05
x/D=13.00

upper and lower corners of the wedge, are much x/D=26.16

more pronounced in the combusting case because 0.04

ignition occurs within the shear layers between the

y [m]
0.03
H2 rich wake and the free-stream air. The flow can
roughly be divided into three regions: the induc- 0.02

tion zone, where the turbulence determines the 0.01

mixing and the progress of combustion; a transi-
tional zone that is dominated by large-scale coher- 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
ent flow structures, convective mixing, air vx [m/s]

entrainment and exothermicity, and a turbulent

combustion zone, with large-scale coherent struc- b x/D=22.00
x/D=20.83
0.05 x/D=13.00 x/D=34.50
tures and mixing. The large-scale structures origi- x/D=26.16
nate in the shear layers that roll up, and become 0.04

increasingly distorted with downstream distance

y [m]
0.03
due to vortex break-down, occupying a large part
of the combustor due to the dilatation, resulting 0.02

both from the flow and the exothermicity. These

0.01
structures are formed by the interaction of the
shocks with the unstable shear layers. The exo- 0
0 200 400 600 800
thermicity increases the shear layer thickness vrms [m/s]
x

which, in turn, affects the subsequent reflections

of the oblique shocks and the overall combustion c
x/D=20.83 x/D=34.50
chamber pressure. The large-scale structures cause 0.05 x/D=13.00
x/D=26.16
momentum exchange by mixing cold high-mo- 0.04
mentum air with hot low-momentum H2 or prod-
y [m]

uct wake flow enforcing the transition from 0.03

subsonic wake flow to supersonic free-stream flow 0.02

together with exothermicity within these struc-
tures. Concerning the agreement between predict- 0.01

ed and experimental shadowgraph images we find 0

only fair agreement; the computed images, here
and in [11], both underestimate the growth of
the wake resulting from the volumetric expansion
due to the reactions in the transitional region just
downstream of the wedge. The reason(s) for this
are not fully understood at present, but may be
related to (i) poor subgrid mixing models, (ii)
the common use of the two-step reaction mecha-
nism [15] which may be too simple, (iii) the use
of a calorically perfect gas model instead of a ther-
mally perfect gas model, and (iv) inaccuracies
related to the modeling of the shadowgraph imag-
es as r2 q. On the other hand, the present LES
results are supported by the OH-LIF and Ray-
leigh scattering results in [9] where the effect of
the volumetric expansion is substantially less pro-
nounced as compared to the experimental shad-
owgraph image. No reasons for this somewhat
contradictory results from the experiments are
known to the authors. More detailed comparisons
between OH-LIF and Rayleigh scattering results
from experiments and LES data will be reported
elsewhere [27].
In Fig. 4a we show profiles of the time-averaged
axial velocity, h~vx i, at x/h = 13.00, 20.83, 22.00,
26.16, and 34.50 along with experimental data
when available for both the inert H2 injection case
and the reacting case. At the first cross-section
(x/h = 13.00) strong reverse velocity may be
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
T [K]
Fig. 4. (a) Time-averaged axial velocity, (b) axial rms-
velocity fluctuations, and (c) temperature at different
cross-sections downstream of the wedge. Legend: Gray
curves and symbols (·) denote the LES and exp. data,
respectively, for the inert H2 injection case whereas black
lines (solid for the two-equation model and dashed for
the one-equation model) and symbols (+) denote LES
and exp. data, respectively, for the combusting case.
Note also that profiles are shifted in the horizontal
direction.
observed on each side of the hydrogen jet(s), and
reasonable agreement with the rather sparse exper-
imental h~vx i profile is found. At the second station
(x/h = 20.83) the predicted h~vx i defect is narrower
than the measured one, which also shows a pecu-
liar asymmetric shape. Previous RANS calcula-
tions [10] and the LES of Génin et al. [11] show
very similar profiles as presented here, and at pres-
ent the origin of the discrepancy between the pre-
dictions and the measurement data is unclear. At
the third and fourth station (x/h = 22.00 and
26.16) good agreement is again obtained, for both
the inert mixing and combustion cases, now result-
ing in an almost flat h~vx i profile with a constant
velocity of about 760 m/s that remains flat
throughout the computational domain. This
should be contrasted against the 2D RANS
 M. Berglund, C. Fureby / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 2497–2504
results, predicting a strong overshoot in h~vx i at x/
h = 20.83, which may not only be due to the 2D
steady-state assumptions in the RANS model,
but may also be due to the RANS laminar flamelet
approximation, where the unsteady coupling
between the flow and the chemical reactions is
not accounted for. Moreover, the streamwise dis-
tribution of h~vx i (not shown) along the geometrical
centerline of the combustor y/h = 4.16 is found to
be in good agreement with the experimental data,
and in particular we find that the velocity drop
behind the wedge is strong—much stronger than
for the inert H2 injection case. This observation
is in good qualitative and quantitative agreement
with experimental data.
Concerning the axial rms-velocity fluctuations
~vrms
x ¼ hð~vx  h~vx iÞ2 i1=2 , given in Fig. 4b, reason-
able agreement is found between the present
LES and the experimental data. The amplitude
and the width are reproduced within a reasonable
accuracy, and the defect that is observed at the
centerline is also found in the present LES.
In Fig. 4c cross-sectional profiles of the time-av-
eraged temperature, hT~ i, are given at x/h = 13.00,
20.83, 22.16, and 34.50 along with experimental
data when available. At x/h = 13.00 we find that
both LES overpredict hT~ i in the shear layers,
whereas at the remaining cross-sections good
agreement between the LES and the measurement
data is found although the statistical sampling is
marginal. It is interesting to observe the spatial evo-
lution of the temperature field with downstream
distance—the first cross-section is within the induc-
tion zone, with mixing-controlled combustion, the
second is most likely within the transitional zone,
with maximum exothermicity, whereas the third is
within the highly turbulent combustion zone. Fur-
thermore, we notice that the turbulent wall-bound-
ary layer increases the temperature by almost 200 K
due to viscous heating—an effect that influences the
thermal load.
6. Concluding remarks
In the present work LES has been used to
investigate mixing and combustion in a scramjet
model under realistic operating conditions. The
configuration used is similar to the laboratory
scramjet engine developed and experimentally
investigated at DLR in Germany. The scramjet
engine consists of a rectangular, one-sided diver-
gent channel with a wedge-shaped flameholder
at the base of which hydrogen can be injected
through an array of holes. In the computational
model periodicity is imposed in the spanwise
direction (with a span encompassing three holes)
to reduce the overall computational cost.
The numerical method is based on an unstruc-
tured finite volume discretization, using TVD
reconstruction of the convective fluxes and central
2503
differencing for the viscous fluxes. The time-inte-
gration is fully explicit, using a second order accu-
rate TVD Runge–Kutta scheme. The LES model
consists of the filtered continuity, momentum,
and energy equations together with the passive/re-
active equations describing the flamelet models.
Moreover, the mixed model, with scale similarity
and algebraic (Smagorinsky type) expressions, is
used for the subgrid turbulent viscosity, heat con-
ductivity and diffusivity, as well as for the scalar
dissipation rate and the variance of the mixture
fraction. Two different flamelet models, using pas-
sive/reactive scalars and a global two-step and
five-species reaction mechanism for H2-air are
used in this study.
In the scramjet engine model a mixing-con-
trolled turbulent diffusion flame is anchored in the
wake of the wedge-like strut, thus acting as a flame-
holder, whereas combustion is initiated in the shear
layers leaving the edges of the wedge. The combus-
tion zone can be divided into an induction zone,
from the wedge base to the section where the diffu-
sion flame starts to dominate, a transitional zone,
where large-scale coherent structures are developed
together with convective mixing, and finally a tur-
bulent (diffusion) flame zone.
The pressure in the combustor is almost con-
stant, which is contrary to the non-reacting cases
also being investigated. Qualitative and quantita-
tive comparisons were systematically made with
experimental data for both velocity and tempera-
tures. These comparisons were supplemented with
comparisons of schlieren, OH-LIF (heat release)
and PIV (velocity) fields (not shown). In summa-
ry, we find that the LES computations are capable
of predicting the flow reasonably well although
some discrepancies concerning the volumetric
expansion and the time-averaged velocity are
found. These deviations are however shared with
other LES and RANS predictions.
Acknowledgments
DLR Institute of Space Propulsion, Lampolds-
hausen, Germany, is acknowledged for providing
the experimental data. Mr. H.G. Weller is
acknowledged for the development of the C++
class library FOAM (Field Operation And
Manipulation), version 1.9.2 b, used here. The
authors also acknowledge Drs. T. Carlsson,
K. Hannemann, and M. Oschwald for valuable
discussions as well as Dr. N. Wikström for
fexcellent work on the computational meshes.
References
[1] T. Poinsot, D. Veynante, Theoretical and Numerical
Combustion, R.T. Edwards, Philadelphia, 2001.
2504 M. Berglund, C. Fureby / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 2497–2504
[2] S. Menon, in: R. Friedrich, W. Rodi (Eds.),
Advances in LES of Complex Flows, Kluwer,
Dordrecht, 2002, p. 329.
[3] J. Janicka, A. Sadiki, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005)
537.
[4] W.P. Jones, in: P.A. Libby, F.A. Williams (Eds.),
Turbulent Reacting Flows, Academic Press, London,
1994, p. 309.
[5] S.B. Pope, Proc. Combust. Inst. 23 (1990) 591.
[6] M. Oschwald, R. Guerra, W. Waidmann, in: Int
Symp on Special Topics in Chem Prop, May 10–14,
Scheveningen, NL, 1993, pp. 498–503.
[7] W. Waidmann, F. Alff, U. Brummund, M. Böhm,
W. Clauss, M. Oschwald, in: DGLR Jahrestagung,
Erlangen, 1994, pp. 629–638.
[8] W. Waidmann, U. Brummund, J. Nuding, in: 8th
Int Symp on Transp Phenom in Comb, July 16–20,
San Francisco, USA, 1995, pp. 1473–1484.
[9] W. Waidmann, F. Alff, U. Brummund, M. Böhm,
W. Clauss, M. Oschwald, Space Technol. 15 (1995)
421–429.
[10] M. Oevermann, Aerosp. Sci. Tech. 4 (2000) 463–
480.
[11] F. Génin, B. Chernyavsky, S. Menon, AIAA Paper,
2003, pp. 2003–7035.
[12] C. Fureby, M. Berglund, in: E. Lamballais et al.
(Eds.) Direct and Large Eddy Simulation VI,
Springer, (in press).
[13] F.F. Grinstein, K.K. Kailasanath, Combust. Flame
100 (1995) 2–10.
Comments
Nickolay Smirkov, Moscow MV Lowouosov State
University, Russia. The flamelet model you use
seems to be quite consistent with the LES model
in terms of basic assumptions. On the other hand,
the model accounting for the final rate of chemical
reactions should take into account some subgrid
modeling of temperature fluctuations rather than
the mean values for temperatures due to the fact
of strong exponential dependence of reaction rate
on temperature.
Reply. In this study, we are using two flamelet
models; the first is based on a transport equation for
a passive scalar and an algebraic equation for its var-
iance and the second is based on transport equations
for a passive scalar and a reactive scalar. The thermo-
chemical state, in terms of species mass fractions, is
entirely determined by the flamelet libraries which in
turn are parameterized using the passive and reactive
scalars, respectively. This approach entirely avoids
evaluating the Arrhenius rate expressions which indeed
suffer from exponential temperature dependence. The
finite rate chemistry effects enter into the two-equation
flamelet model by means of the laminar flame speed
and its dependence on strain rate and the passive sca-
lar, i.e., the mixture fraction.
[14] K.N.C. Bray, Proc. Combust. Inst. 26 (1996) 1–26.
[15] R.C. Rogers, W. Chinitz, AIAA Paper, 1982, pp.
82–0112.
[16] E.S. Oran, J.P. Boris, Numerical Simulation of
Reactive Flow, Elsevier, New York, 1987.
[17] G. Erlebacher, M.Y. Hussaini, C.G. Speziale, T.A.
Zang, ICASE Report No 90-76, NASA Langley,
1990.
[18] F. Gao, CTR Annual Research Briefs, Center for
Turbulence Research, 1993, p. 187.
[19] W.P. Jones, P. Musonge, Phys. Fluids 31 (1988)
3589–3604.
[20] C. Duwig, C. Fureby, LES of unsteady stratified
combustion, (in preparation).
[21] C. Fureby, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005) 593.
[22] C. Meneveau, T. Poinsot, Combust. Flame 86 (1991)
311–332.
[23] G.L. North, D.A. Santavicca, Combust. Sci. Tech-
nol. 72 (1990) 215–232.
[24] S. Gottlieb, C.-W. Shu, Math. Comput. 67 (1998)
73–85.
[25] D. Drikakis, C. Fureby, F.F. Grinstein, M. Lief-
vendahl, In: F.F. Grinstein et al. (Eds.) Implicit
Large Eddy Simulation: Computing Turbulent Fluid
Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, (in press).
[26] C. Fureby, N. Alin, N. Wikström, S. Menon, N.
Svanstedt, L. Persson, AIAA J. 42 (2004) 457–468.
[27] M. Berglund, C. Fureby, LES of Flow, Mixing, and
Combustion in a Supersonic Combustor, (in
preparation).
d
Jeong-Zeol Choi, Pusan National University, Korea.
You mentioned the grid convergence by using velocity
profiles in an averaged field. But for turbulence combus-
tion it is considered that grid convergence should be con-
firmed for turbulent characteristics such as turbulent
intensity and frequency to correctly account for the tur-
bulence mixing that governs the physics. Would you
clarify the level of grid resolution in your computation
with respect to the turbulence characteristics?
Reply. Two grids with 3 and 6 million grid points have
been used for this study and we have presented compari-
sons of the time-averaged axial velocity component, the
temperature profiles, as well as the rms-fluctuations for
the axial velocity component with good or reasonable
agreement with experimental data. Taking into account
the allowed length of the paper and the information avail-
able from the experiments, more detailed comparisons are
not possible. However, comparing statistical data be-
tween LES predictions performed on different grids sug-
gests that the statistics of both the first and the second
order statistical moments are reasonably well captured
on the coarse mesh. Some improvement can be observed
for the fine grid in the shear layers in the transition region.