“SAPIENZA” UNIVERSITY OF ROME

SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

MASTER’S DEGREE IN ASTRONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

LES OF COMBUSTION IN SUPERSONIC REGIME

FOR SCRJ APPLICATIONS

SUPERVISOR STUDENT
Prof. Claudio Bruno Luigi Romagnosi

ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR
Ph.D Antonella Ingenito
Ph.D Donato Cecere

Academic Year 2009/2010

 Goals of thesis
 The analysis of mechanisms of vorticity and turbolent production
in the field with the ultimate goal to optimize the mixing and
anchor the supersonic flame

 Validation of results using measurments from the HyShot project

[Rif. “Report on the Hyshot Scramjet Experiments in the T4
Shock Tunnel”, M. Frost, A. Paull, H. Alesi]

X-51 A Waverider New concept space launcher

2
 Contents
 Introduction
- Ramjet → Scramjet
- How SCRJ model engine works
- HyShot scramjet program

 Numerical approach
- Mathematical model and simulation set-up
- Closure models (SGS / EDC)
- Numerical scheme (Weno35)

 Simulation results
- Description of the fluid dynamic field
- Study of the vorticity production and diffusion terms
- Combustion analysis

 Conclusions and future developments

3
 Why studying SCRAMJET?
SCRAMJET = Supersonic Combustion RAMJET

RAMJET is the evolution of the turbojet which, based on the idea of

Renè Lorin (1913), have no rotating parts. The absence of
compressor and turbine allows higher temperature in the combustion
chamber.

RAMJET → SCRAMJET
RAMJET limits: C.C works in the subsonic conditions → sharp
slowdown of the flow in the air intake → high
temperature in the C.C → limit on the maximum
flight speed (M ≤ 5)
Solution: keep a supersonic flow in the combustion chamber (SCRJ)

4
 How a SCRJ model engine works

Air intake

Combustion
chamber

Future: advantages:
 High flight speed (M=6-12)
Thrust
 No need for carrying oxidizer on board:
plate
→ SCRJ uses air (for new concept launcher)

Drawbacks:
 Must be accelerated up to M=6
 Low residence time in c.c.(10 -3 ÷ 10 -4 s) → mixing is critical

5
 HyShot scramjet program
HyShot is a research project developed at the University of Queensland
Centre for Hypersonics (UQ) in order to demonstrate the feasibility of
supersonic combustion via flight tests (jointly with US and UK)
Mission profile:
Trajectory data:
1st stage (Terrier) → tburnout = 6.4 s
V = 4000 km/h
h = 3.7 km
2nd stage (Orion) → tburnout = 27 s
V = 8300 km/h
h = 56 km
Apogee: h = 314 km

Test → Fuel: H2
tinjection = 6 s
h = 35 - 23 km
M = 7.6 – 7.4

6
 Simulation of HyShot combustion chamber

305 mm x 100 mm 300 mm x 75 mm x 9.8 mm 200 mm x 75 mm

Simulation Data from UQ ground testing in the T4 SWT (h = 28 km ; AOA = 0°):

φ = 0.426 Air Hydrogen
Pressure [Pa] 82110 307340
Mach 2.79 1
Density [kg/m3] 0.2358 0.3020
Temperature [K] 1229 250
Sound speed [m/s] 682.9 1204.4
Flow speed [m/s] 1905.291 1204.4

7
 Mathematical model and simulation set-up
Reactive N-S:

No. nodes = 50∙106 (448 x 128 x 878)

Species transport
equations:

Eqn of state:

Solver: Explicit and compressible

Method: Finite difference (placed variables)
Numerical scheme: Runge-Kutta 3rd order (time integration)
Hybrid: Finite differences 4th order -
WENO35 (spatial integration)
SGS Model: Fractal
Riemann problem solver: HLLC/HLLE
Boundary conditions: NSCBC (Navier-Stokes Characteristic
Boundary Condition)
Kinetic scheme: 9 involved species and 37 chemical reactions

8
 SGS (SubGrid Scale) closure models
Fractal nature of turbulence:
Hp: large Re∆ → inertial range below ∆

(eddy viscosity) with

η
Combustion model (EDC): V* = χγ*V

fine structures
9
 WENO35 numerical scheme
WENO (Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory) is the evolution of a scheme introduced for the
first time in 1987, developed by Harten, Osher, Engquist and Chakravarthy. WENO35 has third
order accuracy where the variables are discontinuous, and fifth order where smooth.

with (candidate stencils for the reconstruction)

Case: r = 3 (5 cells) Accuracy: 2r-1 (smooth)

r (not smooth)
Lagrange polynomials:

If the solution is
with smooth in all Sk:

10
WENO35 validation
PROGRESSIVE WAVE

REGRESSIVE WAVE

11
Simulation results (1/2)

900 m/s

H2 expands and ρ↓
Barrel shock
Mach disk (vorticity generated
by baroclinic effect)

12
 Simulation results (2/2)

M=2.4→0.6

T=250→310 K

13
 Study of ω (vorticity)
Vorticity transport equation:

14
 Baroclinic term (1/3)
It is the only true source term of vorticity (as is
not a function of ω)

15
 Baroclinic term (2/3)

16
 Baroclinic term (3/3)

3
2

17
 Vortex Stretching (1/2)
The vortex stretching promotes the turbulence energy cascade through the
combined effect of stretching and tilting:

For example, to simplify matters: Incompressible fluid → div(u)=0

Rigid rotation does

not contribute to
vortex stretching

18
 Vortex Stretching (2/2)

m/s
UZ = 200 - 1800

19
 Compressibility term (1/2)
Compressibility plays a dual role:
I. Reduces molecular mean free path → shortens chemical time
II. Increases molecular collisions → lower species interdiffusion
(important for diffusion flames)

Mean free path:

Reaction rate [kg/m3s]:

k = ATb e (Arrhenius’s kinetic theory)

E /RT
A

Kelvin’s Theorem:
ω L (Incompressible fluid)
ωA = cost
ω ρL (Compressible fluid)

20
Compressibility term (2/2)

div(u)<0 → ω↑

div(u)>0 → ω↓

21
 Viscous terms (1/3)
Viscous terms are f(μ), diffuse vorticity and create small-scale vortices close
to the wall.
Dimensionaless form of vorticity equation:
with

NB: If Re → 1 then VISCOUS FORCES ≈ INERTIAL FORCES

wall friction
μ↑ temperature rise
Re → 1 chemical reactions
u↓ flow slows down close to the wall

Lighter particles are

Linked to the
subjected
Vorticestodirected
greater in a general
second derivatives
decelerations
direction aredue redirected
to along
of the vorticity. It
viscous
a definite
stress.direction
It when
produces vorticity
produces
subjectedvorticity
to viscous
in gradients
in opposition to the
opposition
in the other
to thetwo directions
vortex stretching
baroclinic term
22
 Viscous terms (2/3)

23
 VS
Viscous terms (3/3)

Boundary layer separation at z = 53 mm

caused by ∆p=8000 Pa in ~1 mm

COMPETITION BETWEEN
MASTER-SLAVE VORTICES
24
 Vorticity and Mixing (1/3)

ω = 105 ÷ 106 Hz
Vt = 1000 m/s
d = 2 mm Re = 60000 ηK = L·Re-3/4 ≈ 0.5 µm
DIFFUSION
µ = 10-5 Pa·s ω = 500000 rad/s tη = T·Re-1/2 ≈ 50 ns ≈ tm FLAME???

ρ = 0.3 kg/m3
NOTE: NO KOLMOGOROV BUT FM (COMPRESSIBILITY)

25
 Vorticity and Mixing (2/3)

26
 H2 core very cool (T=250 k)
ω = 80000 ÷ 300000 rounds per second → heating and consumption
from the outside
Vorticity and Mixing (3/3)
Redistribution of H2 along the
walls (tilting of spanwise
vorticity) → increase in heat
transfer surface air/wall-H2

Competition between master – slave vortices →

instability of flame surface in favor of mixing

27
 Main chemical species

YOH ≈ 1.5 %
YH2O ≈ 10 %
YH2 ≈ 0.2 %

28
 Simulation: validation
no. 16 pressure transducers
AIR INTAKE spaced 13 mm apart. The
first is located 9 cm
THRUST
PLATE downstream of the
combustor chamber
entrance.
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER

29
 Conclusions
The LES simulation of the HyShot II combustion chamber highlights some interesting
aspects:

this simulation predicts complete combustion in supersonic regime (flame anchors

already 2 cm upstream of the injectors)

crossflow injection allows rapid fuel-oxidant mixing; the baroclinic effect caused
by the expansion of the H2 jet produces high energy vortical structures

 the baroclinic contribution is of the same order of magnitude of the vortex

stretching and compressibility terms (1010 rad/s2).

 the hydrogen low density contributes to the production of vorticity (B is inversely

proportional to the square of ρ)

 combustion efficiency is very high (only 0.2% of the total mass at the
combustion chamber exit is H2)

30
 Future developments
arget: Looking for the right balance between mixing and thrust produced
How much fuel injected affects vorticity production (for example,
kerosene: ρRP-1 ≈ 800 kg/m3 vs ρH2 ≈ 0.09 kg/m3)

What is the thrust contribution by fuel momentum (for example,

vary the angle and the injection pressure)

How much the injector geometry affects the mixing (fluid jet
destabilization, injecting from slits)

What is the increase of entropy in different configurations (search

for the optimum set-up that gives minimum ∆S). This simulation shows a
∆S of about 37/mol K through the combustion chamber
31