Mixing studies

• In Scramjets very short residence time

• Understanding of mixing is needed for efficient combustion and design
• The structure of expanding jets plays a major role in mixing
• The previous studies concentrated on mixing by

 Large scale structures in shear layer

 CVP
 Large Scale structures
• Mixing has been investigated both numerically and experimentally
• VanLerberghe et al[1][2] conducted PLIF studies for M=1.6 cross flow
 reported the role of large scale structure in mixing
 these structures engulf cross flow fluid
 helps in near field mixing[3][5]
 Size of the structures increases as J increases
• VanLerberghe et al[2] gave a detailed study later incorporating probability
density function(PDF) on PLIF images

Engulfing cross
flow fluid

* Acetone particles
are seeded into the jet
flow. Higher intensity
shows higher number
Fig: instantaneous PLIF image* [2](side views) density of acetone
particles
 Probability density function(PDF)

Centerline regions

•I signal intensity

•I/Imax =0 unmixed cross flow fluid
•I/Imax =1 unmixed jet fluid
•Centerline line connecting
maximum intensity regions
•PDF for intermediate
intensities(0.4-0.7) high below
centerline region
•Maximum mixing occurs at the
a b
wake below jet
Fig: PDF at x/D= a) 2.3 and b) 6.1
 Counter Rotating Vortex Pairs
• CVP  important role in overall mixing[5][4][2]
• Advects cross flow fluid to the bottom of the jet plume[1][2]

* Acetone particles
are seeded into the jet
flow. Higher intensity
shows higher number
density of acetone
particles

CVP
Fig: instantaneous PLIF image* cross-section[2]

• The crossflow engulfment is clearly visible in PDF of PLIF images in studies

conducted by VanLerberghe et al [2]
 Probability density function(PDF)

a b c
Fig: PDF at z/D= a) 1.1 and b) 0 c) -0.8
• high probabilities of unmixed cross• ow •fluid are indicated at every location
below the jet.
• This supports the expectation that the streamwise vortex pair acts to draw
cross•flow •fluid up into the center of the jet
• Vorticity of CVP reduces as the flow proceeds downstream[3]

Conclusion
• The near field mixing is mainly controlled by the large-scale structures of
shear layer and CVPs inside the jet plume
• The large scale structures becomes larger with J
• Cross flow engulfment by the large scale structures in shear layer
promote nearfield mixing
• The CVP advects cross flow fluid into wake region below jet
• Mixing is more at the wake region, than the upper portion of jet
 Mixing efficiency
• Fuel penetration in a cross-flow is closely related to mixing efficiency
• Mixing efficiency is affected by many factors
 Jet to crossflow momentum flux ratio
 angle of injection
 cross flow mach number
• Mixing efficiency is given by[5]
 uk
A   1,
 
 ( y, z )  1 

 dA  ( y, z ),  ( y, z )  1
  uk
A  k 
 ( y, z )  14.79*  
 1 k 
•A area of y-z plane
•k mass fraction of jet
• ( y, z ) the local equivalent
ratio
 Injection Angle

• Zhang Y et al[5] studied mixing characteristics of transverse jets at 45o and

90o angles numerically using hybrid RANS/LES simulation

• The increase in efficiency for

90o is because of larger size and
interval of large scale shear
structures than 45o case
• the length of CVP in45o jet is
longer than that in 90o jet
•So the author concluded that,
the large scale shear layer
structures dominate the mixing
efficiency
 Total pressure loss
• Zhang Y et al[5] studied the pressure loss ratio for transverse jets at 45o
and 90o angles.
• Pressure loss ratio is given by[6][5]:
∞  crossflow conditions
J  jet conditions
Ai  area of inflow
(y,z) arbitrary point in y-z
plane

• The loss is primarily due to

more flow blockage by the 90o
injector[5]
 To Cover
Mixing efficiency
• variation with J
• Variation with M∞ and Mj
• Variation with molecular weights
Pressure loss
• variation with J
• Variation with M∞ and Mj
• Variation with molecular weights
 References
1. VanLerberghe, W., Dutton, J., Lucht, R., & Yuen, L. (1994). Penetration and
mixing studies of a sonic transverse jet injected into a Mach 1.6 crossflow. In
Fluid Dynamics Conference. Reston, Virigina: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1994-2246
2. VanLerberghe, W. M., Santiago, J. G., Dutton, J. C., & Lucht, R. P. (2000).
Mixing of a Sonic Transverse Jet Injected into a Supersonic Flow. AIAA Journal,
38(3), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.984
3. Santiago, J. G., & Dutton, J. C. (1997). Velocity Measurements of a Jet Injected
into a Supersonic Crossflow. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 13(2), 264–273.
https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5158
4. Zhang, Y., Liu, W., & Wang, B. (2015). Effects of oblique and transverse
injection on the characteristics of jet in supersonic crossflow. Acta
Astronautica, 115, 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.06.004
5. Gruber, M. R., Nejadt, A. S., Chen, T. H., & Dutton, J. C. (1995). Mixing and
Penetration Studies of Sonic Jets in a Mach 2 Freestream. Journal of
Propulsion and Power, 11(2), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.51427
6. Fuller, R., Wu, P.-K., Nejad, A., & Schetz, J. (1996). Fuel-vortex interactions
for enhanced mixing in supersonic flow. In 32nd Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit. Reston, Virigina: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1996-2661
7. Santiago, J. G., & Dutton, J. C. (1997). Velocity Measurements of a Jet
Injected into a Supersonic Crossflow. Journal of Propulsion and Power,
13(2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5158