Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 309387, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/309387
Research Article

Investigations on the Influence of the In-Stream Pylon and Strut on the Performance of a Scramjet Combustor

Science and Technology on Scramjet Laboratory, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410073, China

Received 22 April 2014; Revised 27 June 2014; Accepted 28 July 2014; Published 31 August 2014

Academic Editor: Antonio F. Bertachini A. Prado

Copyright © 2014 Hao Ouyang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The influence of the in-stream pylon and strut on the performance of scramjet combustor was experimentally and numerically investigated. The experiments were conducted with a direct-connect supersonic model combustor equipped with multiple cavities. The entrance parameter of combustor corresponds to scramjet flight Mach number 4.0 with a total temperature of 947 K. The research results show that, compared with the scramjet combustor without pylon and strut, the wall pressure and the thrust of the scramjet increase due to the improvement of mixing and combustion effect due to the pylon and strut. The total pressure loss caused by the strut is considerable whereas pylon influence is slight.

1. Introduction

The scramjet generally denotes the ramjet whose flight speed is Ma > 6. The core technology is supersonic combustion, which is a key and difficult issue on developing hypersonic technology. It has been considered for applications on hypersonic cruise missiles, hypersonic planes, aerospace planes, and single stage launchers to orbit. Because of its military and political significance, many countries have made huge investments into scramjet research. The scramjet shows the most potential for air-breathing hypersonic propulsion; however the design of a scramjet combustor is a great challenge. Its performance depends largely on the mixing process, fuel properties, and the supersonic flow throughout the scramjet combustor. A lot of research has already been carried out aiming at achieving efficient mixing between fuel and the core supersonic flow and making optimal conversion of chemical energy into heat. The main studied methods include normal and oblique wall injection [15], use of ramp [611], pylons [12, 13], aeroramps [1417], cavities [1821], swirl [22, 23], struts [2426], pulsed jets [27, 28], counterflow [29], and shock/shear layer interaction [3032]. The methods applied in this paper include normal wall injection and the use of struts and pylons. This paper presents the results of experimental and numerical investigations on the influence of in-stream pylon and strut on the performance of scramjet combustor.

2. Experimental Apparatus

The direct connected supersonic combustion ground test system used in this work can be seen in Figure 1. The model scramjet combustor is directly mounted downstream the supersonic nozzle of the air heater which heats the air by means of air/ethanol/O2 combustion. The flow conditions of the supersonic nozzle exit, that is the scramjet combustor entry, are listed in Table 1.

tab1
Table 1: Flow conditions at the scramjet combustor entry.
309387.fig.001
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the test bench.

As Figure 2 shows, the model scramjet combustor consists of a constant cross-section isolator and a one-sided divergent combustor. The cross-sectional area of the isolator is 54.5 mm × 75 mm. The combustor has an expansion angle of 2.5° on the top wall. Six uniform flame-holding cavities are arranged in the divergent section. The cavity size has been given in Figure 3. Here for brevity we denote the interchangeable injector installed position as i1, i2, i3, and i4. The three kinds of interchangeable injector have been shown in Figure 3. In order to avoid the in-stream pylon and strut to burn out, they are installed before the combustor in i1 or i2 positions and will be replaced by the wall normal injector when contrastive experiments without pylons and struts were carried out. In positions i3 and i4, wall normal injectors were applied all the time. Figures 4 and 5 show the schematic diagram and the sizes of the struts and pylons used in this paper, respectively. The kerosene was injected through the holes in the struts and in front of the pylons.

309387.fig.002
Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the scramjet combustor model.
309387.fig.003
Figure 3: Schematic diagram of interchangeable injectors and a cavity module.
309387.fig.004
Figure 4: Schematic diagram of struts.
309387.fig.005
Figure 5: Schematic diagram of pylons.

The pressures of combustor along the centerline of the top wall are measured by a series of strain-gauge pressure transducers through taps with the diameter of 0.5 mm distributed on the top wall. The combustion flow field is visualized by high speed imaging camera through three optical windows shown in Figure 2, the flame images were captured through the optical windows 2 and 3, and the schlieren images were captured through the optical window 1. A thrust sensor was used to measure the thrust changes during the experiments.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Results and Discussion about Strut

The three group kerosene supersonic combustion comparative experiments between strut and normal wall injection are listed in Table 2. Results showed in Table 2 indicate that a strut can increase the thrust of the model scramjet combustor whether the strut is installed on the top side or on the bottom side or on both sides. As Figures 6, 7, and 9 show, the flame is brighter and the combustion zone is wider; the wall pressure is higher when applying strut, which can indicate that the combustion as well as heat release of kerosene is more adequate. Figure 8 shows schlieren images of experiment 05. It can be found in it that the heat release of combustion shortens the kerosene atomization and evaporation distance significantly and slows down the core supersonic flow, which has been verified by the disappearance of shock waves. Further studies on the mechanism about enhancing kerosene supersonic combustion by strut have been carried on through three-dimensional numerical simulation. The numerical method has been well described in our former work [33], so it is omitted here. The experiments 01 and 02 are selected for calculation.

tab2
Table 2: Comparison experiment about strut.
309387.fig.006
Figure 6: Comparison of high-speed flame images of stable combustion between experiments 01 and 02.
309387.fig.007
Figure 7: Comparison of high-speed flame images of stable combustion between experiments 03 and 04.
309387.fig.008
Figure 8: High-speed schlieren images of experiment 05.
309387.fig.009
Figure 9: Comparison of wall pressure in strut experiments.

Mass-averaged mixing efficiency is defined as follows: where where is fuel mass fraction. A value of corresponds to a perfectly segregated state, while corresponds to a perfectly mixed system.

The total pressure recovery coefficient defined as provides a recovery coefficient of mass-averaged total pressure for a given field and is represented in the equation as follows: , where is the mass-averaged total pressure for a region of interest and is defined as and is the freestream total pressure.

Figure 10 shows the calculated results. Panel (a) shows that struts can result in more uniform distribution of kerosene and panel (b) reveals the disturbance caused by a strut to the core flow will induce additional streamwise vortices. This will improve the mixing effect of fuel and the core flow inevitably, which is verified quantitatively by Figure 10(c). Figure 10(d) shows strut will cause considerable total pressure loss, which is very likely the reason of group 3 that the thrust only increases 7.1% when struts are installed on both sides.

fig10
Figure 10: Comparison of calculation results between experiments 01 and 02.
3.2. Results and Discussion about Pylon

The three group kerosene supersonic combustion comparative experiments between pylon and normal wall injection are listed in Table 3. According to Table 3 and Figures 11, 12, and 13, experimental and calculation results about pylons are similar to the ones for struts. In order to avoid repetition, this subsection will put emphasis on the difference between strut and pylon. Firstly, as Figure 12(d) shows, unlike strut, the total pressure loss caused by pylon is slight, so the scramjet thrust will be significantly heightened 20.6% when pylons are mounted on both sides. Secondly, comparison of Tables 2 and 3 shows that the effect of strut and pylon when mounted on top side is similar but strut is better with respect to bottom side. Additionally, according to Figure 13, we can find, unlike the parallel fuel injection of strut, that the penetration quality of the transverse kerosene jets behind the pylon will be improved so much that the two jets will interact, which can boost the break of kerosene droplets to improve the atomization, evaporation, and mixing effect of kerosene.

tab3
Table 3: Comparison experiment about pylon.
309387.fig.0011
Figure 11: Comparison of wall pressure in pylon experiments.
fig12
Figure 12: Comparison of calculation results between experiments 01 and 06.
309387.fig.0013
Figure 13: High-speed schlieren images of experiment 08.

4. Conclusion

In the present study, experiments and three-dimensional numerical simulations were conducted using kerosene as fuel to study the effect of pylon and strut on enhancing mixing and combustion in scramjet flight with Mach number 4.0. Based on the present results, a few conclusions can be drawn.(1)Both strut and pylon can increase the mixing efficiency of fuel and main flow and enhance the kerosene combustion to improve the performance of a scramjet combustor whether mounted on the top side or on the bottom side or on both sides.(2)Strut can optimize the fuel distribution and generate additional streamwise vortices by the disturbance to the main flow.(3)Pylon can also generate streamwise vortices. But unlike the parallel fuel injection of strut, it is probable to lead to transverse jet interaction by improving the penetration quality of jet.(4)Strut results in considerable total pressure loss, whereas the total pressure loss caused by pylon is slight.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgment

This research work is supported by the National Natural Science Fund of China. The Grant ID number is 91116001.

References

  1. A. Ben-Yakar, Experimental investigation of mixing and ignition of transverse jets in supersonic crossflows [Doctor thesis], Stanford University, 2000.
  2. M.-B. Sun, H. Geng, J.-H. Liang, and Z.-G. Wang, “Mixing characteristics in a supersonic combustor with gaseous fuel injection upstream of a cavity flameholder,” Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 271–286, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. R. A. Balar, G. Young, B. Pang, A. K. Gupta, K. H. Yu, and A. P. Kothari, “Comparison of parallel and normal fuel injection in a supersonic combustor,” in Proceedings of the 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, pp. 1245–1255, AIAA, July 2006. View at Scopus
  4. D. Bayley and R. Hartfield, “Experimental investigation of angled injection in a compressible flow,” AIAA 95-2414.
  5. M. Gruber, A. Nejad, and J. Dutton, “An experimental investigation of transverse injection from circular and elliptical nozzles into a supersonic crossflow,” Final Report WL-TR-2102, Wright Laboratory, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  6. Y. Yamane, Y. Ando, S. Aso et al., “A numerical study on mixing of supersonic flow field with parallel injection through ramp nozzle,” AIAA 94-2944.
  7. D. R. Eklund and S. D. Stouffer, “A numerical and experimental study of a supersonic combustor employing swept ramp fuel injectors,” AIAA 94-2819, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  8. T. M. Abdel-Salam, S. N. Tiwari, and T. O. Mohieldin, “Effects of ramp side angle in supersonic mixing,” AIAA Journal, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1199–1201, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. R. C. Rogers, D. P. Capriotti, and R. W. Guy, “Experimental supersonic combustion research at NASA Langley,” AIAA 98-2506.
  10. D. S. Stouffer, R. N. Baker, P. D. Capriotti et al., “Effects of compression and expansion-ramp fuel injector configurations on scramjet combustion and heat transfer,” Tech. Rep. AIAA 93-0609, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  11. H. Y. Wu, J. Zhou, H. B. Wang, M. B. Sun, and S. P. Zhang, “Performance comparison between the ramp injectors with different structures in supersonic combustion,” Journal of Aerospace Power, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1476–1481, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. R. A. Balar, A. K. Gupta, K. H. Yu, and A. P. Kothari, “Pylon-aided fuel injection into supersonic flow,” in Proceedings of the 45th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA-2007-834, 2007.
  13. A. B. Freeborn, P. King, and M. R. Gruber, “Swept-leading-edge pylon effects on a scramjet pylon-cavity flameholder flowfield,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 571–582, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. L. S. Jacobsen, S. D. Gallimore, J. A. Schetz, and W. F. O'Brien, “Improved aerodynamic-ramp injector in supersonic flow,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 663–673, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. S. K. Cox-Stouffer and M. R. Gruber, “Effects of spanwise injection spacing on mixing characteristics of aerodynamic ramp injectors,” in Proceedings of the 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AlAA 98-3272, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, July 1998.
  16. L. S. Jacobsen, S. D. Gallimore, J. A. Schetz, and W. F. O'Brien, “Improved aerodynamic-ramp injector in supersonic flow,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 663–673, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S. K. Cox-Stouffer and M. R. Gruber, “Further investigation of the effects of aerodynamic ramp design upon mixing characteristics,” AIAA 99-2238.
  18. T. Mathur, M. Gruber, K. Jackson et al., “Supersonic combustion experiments with a cavity-based fuel injector,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1305–1312, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M. R. Gruber, J. M. Donbar, C. D. Carter, and K.-Y. Hsu, “Mixing and combustion studies using cavity-based flameholders in a supersonic flow,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 769–778, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. L. S. Jacobsen, C. D. Carter, and A. C. Dwenger, “Cavity-based injector mixing experiments for supersonic combustors with implications on igniter placement,” in Proceedings of the 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, pp. 9035–9047, AIAA, July 2006. View at Scopus
  21. J.-Y. Heo, K.-J. Kim, H.-G. Sung, H.-S. Choi, and V. Yang, “Numerical study on kerosene/lox supercritical mixing characteristics of a swirl injector,” in Proceedings of the 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Nashville, Tenn, USA, January 2012. View at Scopus
  22. D. G. Lilley, “Swirl and lateral jet injection for mixing and combustion efficiency,” Tech. Rep. AIAA 2014-1383, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  23. S. Murugappan, E. Gutmark, C. Carter, J. Donbar, M. Gruber, and K.-Y. Hsu, “Transverse supersonic controlled swirling jet in a supersonic cross stream,” AIAA Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 290–300, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. P. Gerlinger and D. Brüggemann, “Numerical investigation of hydrogen strut injections into supersonic airflows,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 22–28, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. V. Aravind and K. Kurian, “Mixing enhancement by Strut based injection in supersonic flow,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Shock Waves (ISSW '25), Bangalore, India, July 2005.
  26. P. Gerlinger, P. Stoll, M. Kindler, F. Schneider, and M. Aigner, “Numerical investigation of mixing and combustion enhancement in supersonic combustors by strut induced streamwise vorticity,” Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 159–168, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  27. D. W. Bogdanoff, “Advanced injection and mixing techniques for scramjet combustors,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 183–190, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. S. J. Kalidas and J. Kurian, “Enhancement of supersonic mixing with the help of pulsed injection,” in Proceedings of the 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, pp. 270–281, July 2007. View at Scopus
  29. P. J. Strykowski, A. Krothpali, and D. Wishart, “Enhancement of mixing in high-speed heated jets using a counterflowing nozzle,” AIAA journal, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 2033–2038, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. S. Menon, “Shock-wave-induced mixing enhancement in scramjet combustors,” AIAA 89-0104, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  31. D. Nixon, G. D. Kuhn, and M. Farshchi, “Numerical simulation of a turbulent flow through a shock wave,” AIAA 90-1641, 1990. View at Google Scholar
  32. J.-H. Kim, Y. Yoon, I.-S. Jeung, H. Huh, and J.-Y. Choi, “Numerical study of mixing enhancement by shock waves in model scramjet engine,” AIAA Journal, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1074–1080, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. H. Ouyang, W. Liu, and M. Sun, “Numerical investigation of the influence of injection scheme on the ethylene supersonic combustion,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 2014, Article ID 124204, 5 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar