i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0

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 5 February 2019 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 sonic flows is essential when flight Mach number (Ma) exceeds
6 so that the vehicle can handle resulting temperature and
An air-breathing propulsion system is significantly lighter pressure fields [2]. Under these conditions, the available time
than solid and liquid propellant-based rocket prolusion sys- for mixing, combustion, and heat release are very short,
tems because it uses atmospheric air as an oxidizer. Among usually a few milliseconds. Therefore, efficient mixing, flame
the available methods of powering a hypersonic vehicle, su- stabilization, thermal choking by uncontrolled heat release,
personic combustion ramjet (Scramjet) has received an and completion of combustion within the combustor length,
increasing attention as a future power source of the hyper- need to be handled effectively so that efficient combustion is
sonic vehicle and significant efforts have concentrated on the 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.
6258 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0

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
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0 6259

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

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
Fig. 2 e Enlarged view of finest grid obtained after several
with default model constants. This model is also considered
adaptations for (a) strut (b) modified strut.
adequate for the predictions of the flow field of interest in this
study [20].
deals with improving mixing and thereby reducing the length Non-premixed combustion of hydrogen and air is modeled
to achieve complete mixing. Dimotakis [32] observed that using the mixture fraction-b pdf framework. Turbulence-
mixing in injections parallel to the flow of supersonic air is chemistry interactions [36] are handled by a strained flame-
improved by the generation of streamwise vortices. This let model following the recommendations of previous re-
observation has motivated the present work and has been searchers [20,37]. The assumptions in the flamelet model are,
used here to modify the injection scheme followed in a con- the chemical time scale is small compared to the smallest
ventional strut injector. The effect on mixing is discussed turbulent time scale and the length scale of flame are short
quantitatively in terms of mixing efficiency and total pressure compared to the smallest turbulent eddies. In the flamelet
loss. Results are based on the predictions of a computational regime turbulent flame is regarded as an ensemble of steady
model implemented for the DLR combustor. 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.
6260 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0

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

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.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0 6261

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

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.
6262 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0

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.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0 6263

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 shockwaves traveling through the channel, shear layer be-
calculations as compared to experimental observations. These tween air and hydrogen jet, shock-shear layer interaction,
variations in results as compared to experimental were also shock-shock interaction and formation of vortices. High-
observed by other researchers as well [22,40,41]. Numerically speed air flowing at Mach 2.0 parallel to the streamwise di-
predicted distribution of static temperature at different rection, on hitting the tip of the strut gets deflected away from
streamwise location is compared with the experimental results the flow direction and gets compressed leading to the for-
in Fig. 7. Numerical calculations predict a rapid heat release mation of the shock wave. Air is turned towards the stream-
near strut base at x ¼ 78 mm. The distribution obtained further wise axis after passing through an expansion wave at the tip
downstream is consistent with the experimental observations. 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
Results and discussion features seen in the experiment. Recirculation zone is formed
at both ends of strut base, which helps in mixing of air and
Flow features without reaction fuel. A shear layer is formed at the interface of air and
hydrogen stream. The flow within the shear layer is deceler-
High-speed flow inside the scramjet combustor is complex ated to subsonic speed due to formation of eddies and mixing.
and is dominated by several flow features such as multiple Hydrogen jet losses its velocity due to entrainment of air to
6264 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0

Fig. 9 e Geometric details of strut injector.

maintain constant velocity. The shock reflected from the generation of shock, injects and distributes fuel, and acts as a
upper and lower walls is reflected from the shear layer at flame holder. Hence, a strut is a key design aspect whose ge-
xz100 mm and deflected at xz180 mm where the flow is ometry controls the shock pattern, vortex formation which
supersonic. The interaction of shock with the shear layer in- affects mixing and combustion. In the present work, strut is
duces additional kinetic energy of turbulence and turbulence modified as shown in Fig. 9 to see its effect on mixing. Modi-
intensity, which enhances the mixing between air and fied strut geometry is presented in Fig. 9 where hydrogen is
hydrogen. injected at 1.5 mm above and below the axis alternatively. The
The strut in the middle of the channel performs multiple length and strut angle is same as basic strut configuration.
functions such as it compresses the oncoming air by the The axial location of the modified strut in the combustor is
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0 6265

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 react. Hot products trapped in the recirculation zone transfer
3 mm wide whose lower wall tapers down until it reaches the heat to an unreacted mixture, thus continuous stable flame is
axis of the strut. Air is allowed to pass in these slots. Density formed at the strut base [42]. As the reaction is initiated,
gradient presented in Fig. 10 for both types of the injector pressure increases at the strut base due to heat addition.
shows a wider shear layer for modified strut injector, indi- Therefore, the shear layer originating from the strut base di-
cating a wider spreading of hydrogen in the transverse di- verges at an angle slightly greater than the strut walls [21].
rection, which aids mixing. A region of low pressure is created This can be seen in experimental shadowgraph, contour plots
in the wake region; this causes the shear layer from strut walls of pressure and density are presented in Fig. 11. Flow regions
to converge. Expansion fan is formed at the corners of the having large gradients of density, velocity and temperature is
wedge. The hydrogen jet exiting into the region of low pres- separated by the shear layer. At xz 95 mm shock wave hitting
sure is under-expanded. Therefore, it expands into a the shear layer is reflected as an expansion fan and shear layer
diamond-shaped shock structure. As the shear layers curve that determines the boundary of the wake region bend back
back and start mixing with the hydrogen jet, compression towards the horizontal. The shocks are not present down-
waves are generated on each side that turn into recom- stream from this point. The reaction zone widens till
pression shock waves. A major difference in the shock pattern xz95 mm and narrows downstream. The flow is decelerated
observed for both injectors is along the strut, where a weak till x ¼ 95 mm and accelerates afterward where the reaction
oblique shock is created at the tip of modified strut followed zone starts narrowing.
by addition shock at xz55 mm and expansion fan at the tip of The region of subsonic flow is marked in the contour plot of
the strut. pressure. The contour plot of temperature, mass fraction of
proton and hydroxyl ion is presented in Fig. 12. Near the base
Flow features with reaction of the strut reaction occurs in the thin mixing layer between
air and hydrogen jet. In the vicinity of hydrogen jet, the region
Flow features with and without reaction are identical till the is still fuel rich, hence the temperature is low which is evident
base of the strut. The oncoming supersonic air stream is from the Fig. 7a. Further downstream entire hydrogen jet is
compressed on passing through the shock formed at the tip of diffused and mixing layer widens. At xz 125 mm entire jet is
the strut resulting in an increase in static pressure and static ignited and temperature reaches its maximum value. As the
temperature. Recirculation zone formed at the strut base flow evolves downstream little reaction occurs and tempera-
provides large surface area for hydrogen and air to mix and ture distribution diffuses and flattens. The region where
6266 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0

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 concentration of proton, hydroxyl and other radicals di-
proton. The region of highest proton concentration is found minishes earlier compared to results observed in basic strut.
below 4 ¼ 1, where the temperature lies within 400e600 K. From these observations shorter reaction zone is inferred for
This proton is completely consumed by oxygen outside the modified strut geometry.
line 4 ¼ 1 and other reactants. The hydroxyl radical is present
in the region of highest temperature. The hydroxyl radical is Performance parameters
mainly present along the shear layer where air entrainment
into the hydrogen jet takes place which implies that the Mixing process evaluated using two performance parameters
diffusion flame is located on the contact surface between are now described. Mixing efficiency (hm ) is defined as fraction
hydrogen jet and air [43]. The concentration of hydroxyl and of hydrogen mass fraction available at stoichiometric condi-
other radicals diminishes towards the end of the combustor, tion to the total mass fraction [44]. Comparison of mixing ef-
indicating completion of the reaction. Similar distributions in ficiency between planar and modified strut is presented in
temperature, mass fraction of proton and hydroxyl radical is Fig. 14a. Mixing is due to high level of turbulence in the shear
observed for modified injector as shown in Fig. 13. The reac- layer formed between the hydrogen jet and air stream.
tion zone is wider for modified injector compared to the re- Modified strut injector induces additional streamwise vortices
action zone observed for basic strut geometry. The region of which improves mixing between hydrogen jet and air stream.
maximum temperature and mass fraction of hydroxyl radical Modified strut takes about 18 mm to reach hm ¼ 1 while planar
is obtained at a shorter distance from the strut base and strut takes about 33 mm. Thus, complete mixing is achieved at
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0 6267

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
6268 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0

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.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0 6269

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 compared and analyzed. The following conclusions are drawn
of combustion efficiency presented in Fig. 15b. from the present studies:
In the vicinity of the strut base, air entrainment occurs in
the H2-rich wake region and ignition occurs. Combustion ef-  The design of fuel injectors is very crucial for the overall
ficiency plot can be divided into three regions. The first region performance of supersonic combustor, as fuel distribution,
is found in the immediate vicinity of the injector till xz78 mm shock pattern mixing and ultimately combustion is sensi-
where the hydrogen-air mixture is ignited and the flame an- tive to fuel injection scheme and injector geometry.
chors in the recirculation zone. The curves for both the in- Modified strut injector geometry presently investigated
jectors show an identical trend in this region as shown in the showed improved mixing performance due to the genera-
plot of Fig. 15b. The second region is found where the gradual tion of additional streamwise vortices.
consumption of hydrogen is found. This region extends till  The length to achieve mixing efficiency >95% is reduced by
xz90 mm and xz125 mm for basic strut configuration. In this 15 mm for modified strut geometry. However, there is an
region, additional streamwise vortices are induced in the case increased 10% loss in total pressure due to the generation
of a modified strut configuration which improves the mixing of vortices.
between H2-air mixtures. Hence, consumption of hydrogen is  Combustion efficiency, predicted from the rate of con-
rapid and most of the heat addition takes place in this region. sumption of hydrogen and the generation of water vapor
This trend is also seen in the plot of mixing efficiency pre- showed a similar trend.
sented in Fig. 14a. The consumption of hydrogen does not vary  Proposed modified strut geometry improves mixing and
in the streamwise direction beyond xz125 mm for modified combustion performance. The length to perfect mixing is
strut configuration and xz200 mm for basic strut configura- strongly reduced.
tion and it is indicated as the third region. The region where
combustion efficiency increases rapidly, heat release takes
references
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) Power 2001;17(6):1138e48.
_ H2 injected
m
[2] Heiser WH, Pratt DT. Hypersonic air-breathing propulsion.
Where, m _ H2 ðxÞ is the mass flow rate of hydrogen at a given Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and
streamwise section and. Astronautics Inc.; 1994. https://doi.org/10.2514/4.470356.
m_ H2 injected is the mass flow rate of hydrogen injected. [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
Conclusion Sciences Meetings 5-8th Jan 2009, Orlando, Florida. https://
doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-1255.
Numerical investigation of flow and combustion phenomenon [4] Huang W. Transverse jet in supersonic crossflows. Aero Sci
of hydrogen jet in supersonic air-stream is performed for su- Technol 2016;50:183e95.
[5] Huang W. Mixing enhancement strategies and their
personic combustors having basic strut injector and modified
mechanisms in supersonic flows: a brief review. Acta
strut injector. RANS equation is utilized to describe flow
Astronaut 2018;145:492e500.
without reaction and coupling between turbulence and [6] Choubey G, Pandey KM, Maji A, Deshamukhya T. A brief
chemistry is obtained through Pdf. Comparison of numerical review on the recent advances in scramjet engine. AIP Conf.
results with experimental results have demonstrated the ac- Proc. 2017;1859, 020036. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4990189.
curacy and applicability of computational grid and numerical [7] Dong H, Liu J, Chen Z. Numerical investigation of lateral jet
scheme for hot and cold flow solutions. The numerically with supersonic reacting flow. J Spacecraft Rockets
2018;55:928e35.
predicted result for both the injector configuration is
6270 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 6 2 5 7 e6 2 7 0

[8] Huang W. Investigation on the effect of strut configurations hydrogen supersonic combustor. P Combust Inst 2018.
and locations on the combustion performance of a typical https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.07.097.
scramjet combustor. J Mech Sci Technol [26] Kumar S, Das S, Sheelam S. Application of CFD and the
2015;29(12):5485e96. Kriging method for optimizing the performance of a generic
[9] Yan L, Liao L, Huang W, Li L. Nonlinear process in the mode scramjet combustor. Acta Astronaut 2014;101:111e9.
transition in typical strut-based and cavity-strut based [27] Choubey G, Pandey KM. Effect of different wall injection
scramjet combustors. Acta Astronaut 2018;145:250e60. schemes on the flow-field of hydrogen fuelled strut-based
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.01.061. scramjet combustor. Acta Astronaut 2018;145:93e104.
[10] Choubey G, Pandey KM. Investigation on the effects of [28] Ingenito A, Bruno C. Physics and regimes of supersonic
operating variables on the performance of two-strut combustion. AIAA J 2010;48(3):515e25.
scramjet combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy [29] Kumaran K, Babu V. Investigation of the effect of chemistry
2016;41:20753e70. models on the numerical predictions of the supersonic
[11] Tan J, Zhang D, Lv L. A review on enhanced mixing methods combustion of hydrogen. Combust Flame 2009;156(4):826e41.
in supersonic mixing layer flows. Acta Astronaut [30] Gerlinger P, Bruggemann D. Numerical investigation of
2018;152:310e24. hydrogen strut injections into supersonic airflows. J Propul
[12] Pandey KM, Roga S, Choubey G. Numerical investigation on Power 2000;16(1):22e8.
hydrogen-fueled scramjet combustor with parallel strut fuel [31] Ferri A. Mixing-controlled supersonic combustion. Annu Rev
injector at a flight mach number of 6. J Appl Fluid Mech Fluid Mech 1973;5:301e38.
2016;9:1215e20. [32] Dimotakis PE. Turbulent free shear layer mixing and
[13] Fureby C, Nordin-Bates K, Petterson K, Bresson A, combustion. Washington, DC: American Institute of
Sabelnikov V. A computational study of supersonic Aeronautics and Astronautics; 1991. https://doi.org/10.2514/
combustion in strut injector and hyper mixer flow fields. 5.9781600866104.0265.0340.
Proc Combust Inst 2015;35:2127e35. [33] Pope SB. Turbulent flows. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge
[14] Huang W, Li ShiBin, Liu Jun, Wang ZhenGuo. Investigation on University Press; 2000.
high angle of attack characteristics of hypersonic space [34] Shin J, Sung HG. Comparison of hybrid RANS/LES methods
vehicle. Sci China Technol Sci May 2012;55(5):1437e42. for supersonic combustion in a model scramjet combustor.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-012-4760-6. In: Hoarau Y, Peng SH, Schwamborn D, Revell A, editors.
[15] Huang W, Wang ZhenGuo, Luo ShiBin, Liu Jun. Parametric Progress in hybrid RANS-LES modelling. HRLM 2016. Notes
effects on the combustion flow field of a typical strut-based on numerical fluid mechanics and multidisciplinary design,
scramjet combustor. Chin Sci Bull December vol. 137. Cham: Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
2011;56(35):3871e7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-011- 4823- 319-70031-1_19.
2. [35] Zingg DW, Godin P. A perspective on turbulence models for
[16] Pandey KM, Sivasakthivel T. Recent advances in scramjet aerodynamic flows. Int J Comput Fluid Dynam
fuel injection - a review. Int J Chem Eng Appl 2010;1:294e301. 2009;23:327e35.
[17] Soni RK, De A. Investigation of strut-ramp injector in a [36] Fulton JA, Edwards JR, Cutler A, McDaniel J, Goyne C.
scramjet combustor : effect of strut geometry. J Mech Sci Turbulence/chemistry interactions in a ramp stabilized
Technol 2017;31:1169e79. supersonic hydrogen-air diffusion flame. Combust Flame
[18] Guerra R, Waidmann W, Laible C. An experimental 2016;174:152e65.
investigation of the combustion of a hydrogen jet injected [37] Fan Z, Liu W, Sun M, Wang Z, Zhuang F, Luo W. Theoretical
parallel in a supersonic air stream. In: 3rd International analysis of flamelet model for supersonic turbulent
Aerospace Planes Conference. Orlando,FL: U.S.A; 1991. combustion. Sci China Technol Sci 2012;55:193e205.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1991-5102. [38] Hochgreb S. Mind the gap: turbulent combustion model
[19] Waidmann W, Alff F, Brummund U, Bohm M, Clauss W, validation and future needs. Proc Combust Inst 2018. https://
Oschwald M. Experimental investigation of the combustion doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.05.003.
process in a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) [39] Maas U, Warnatz J. Ignition processes in hydrogen-oxygen
combustion chamber. In: Deutscher luft-und mixtures. Combust Flame 1988;74:53e69.
raumfahrtkongreb, DGLR-Jahrestagung; 1994. 04-07 [40] Potturi AS, Edwards JR. Hybrid large-eddy/Reynolds-
October,1994; Erlangen. averaged Navier-Stokes simulations of flow through a model
[20] Oevermann M. Numerical investigation of turbulent scramjet. AIAA J 2014;52(7):1417e29.
hydrogen combustion in a scramjet using flamelet modeling. [41] Fureby C, Fedina E, Tegner J. A computational study of
Aero Sci Technol 2000;4:463e80. supersonic combustion behind a wedge-shaped flameholder.
[21] Genin F, Menon S. Simulation of turbulent mixing behind a Shock Waves 2014;25(1):41e50.
strut injector in supersonic flow. AIAA J 2010;48(3):526e39. [42] Berglund M, Fureby C. LES of supersonic combustion in a
[22] Choubey G, Pandey KM. Effect of variation of angle of attack scramjet engine model. Proc Combust Inst 2007;31:2497e504.
on the performance of two-strut scramjet combustor. Int J [43] Lee S. Characteristics of dual transverse injection in scramjet
Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(26):11455e70. combustor, Part 2. Combustion J Propul Power
[23] Choubey G, Pandey KM. Effect of parametric variation of 2006;22:1020e6.
strut layout and position on the performance of a typical [44] Gerlinger P, Stoll P, Kindler M, Schneider F, Aigner M.
two-strut based scramjet combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy Numerical investigation of mixing and combustion
2017;42(15):10485e500. enhancement in supersonic combustors by strut induced
[24] Kummitha OR. Numerical analysis of hydrogen fuel Scramjet streamwise vorticity. Aero Sci Technol 2008;12:159e68.
combustor with turbulence development inserts and with [45] Anderson JD. Fundamentals of aerodynamics. 3rd ed. New
different turbulent models. Int J Hydrogen Energy York: McGraw-Hill series in aeronautical and aerospace
2017;42(9):6360e8. engineering; 2001 (Chapter 8).
[25] Kun W, Peng Z, Wei Y, Xuejun F. Computational realization
of multiple flame stabilization modes in DLR strut-injection