Advertisement

Effects of Tube Wall Thickness on Combustion and Growth Rate of Supersonic Reacting Mixing Layer

Conference paper
  • 109 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 680)

Abstract

The study of supersonic reacting shear layer has been paid great attention to further understand flow characteristics and mechanism of the engine combustion process. However, most past studies remain narrow in focus dealing only with infinitely small tube thickness or fixed ones which neglects the complex flow structures reflecting some general features of scramjet engine mixing and combustion process. In the present study, supersonic reacting mixing layer has been studied under different tube thickness. Numerical simulations have been carried out with CFD++ 14.1 to solve the Reynolds averaged equation on the Evan’s configuration which is closed by Menter’s Shear Stress Transport turbulence model and finite reaction rate chemical kinetic model. The flow field evolution, mixing layer growth and combustion ignition are the major focus of current study. The obtained results show that the existence of finite tube thickness brings unique flow field characteristic such as expansion fans and shock systems which is not included in the tradition simplified analysis of reacting shear with infinitesimal tube thickness. The tube thickness has a positive effect on growth of mixing layer and ignition delay that 50% of decrease in ignition delay has achieved by enough tube wall thickness.

Keywords

Supersonic reacting shear layer Non-premixed turbulent combustion Tube thickness effect 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11672183) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Fry RS (2004) A century of ramjet propulsion technology evolution. J Propul Power 20:27–58.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.9178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang W, Yan Li, Tan J-G (2014) Survey on the mode transition technique in combined cycle propulsion systems. Aerosp Sci Technol 39:685–691.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2014.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Firsov A, Savelkin KV, Yarantsev DA (2015) Plasma-enhanced mixing and flameholding in supersonic flow. Phil Trans Royal Soc A: Math, Phys Eng Sci 373(2048):20140337.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Capecelatro J, Bodony DJ, Freund JB (2019) Adjoint-based sensitivity and ignition threshold mapping in a turbulent mixing layer. Combust Theor Model 23(1):147–179.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830.2018.1495342MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jackson TL, Hussaini MY (1988) An asymptotic analysis of supersonic reacting mixing layers. Combust Sci Technol 57(4–6):129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huete C, Sánchez AL, Williams FA (2017) Diffusion-flame ignition by shock-wave impingement on a hydrogen–air supersonic mixing layer. J Propul Power. 256-263.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B36236
  7. 7.
    Zhang YL, Wang B, Zhang HQ (2014) Ignition, flame propagation and extinction in the supersonic mixing layer flow. Sci China Technol Sci 57(11):2256–2264.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-014-5655-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tahsini AM (2013) Turbulence and additive effects on ignition delay in supersonic combustion. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part G: J Aerosp Eng 227(1):93–99.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410011428981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tien JH, Stalker RJ (2002) Release of chemical energy by combustion in a supersonic mixing layer of hydrogen and air. Combust Flame 131(3):329–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-2180(02)00371-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Givi P, Madnia CK, Steinberger CJ et al (1991) Effects of compressibility and heat release in a high speed reacting mixing layer. Combust Sci Technol 78(1–3):33–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00102209108951740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calhoon W (2003) Heat release and compressibility effects on planar shear layer development. 41st Aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. 1273.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2003-1273
  12. 12.
    Yao X, Tan J, Zhang D (2019) Combustion of H2/air supersonic mixing layers with splitter plate: Growth rates and transport characteristic. Acta Astronaut 165:401–413.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.09.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu H, Gao Z, Jiang C et al (2019) Numerical study of combustion effects on the development of supersonic turbulent mixing layer flows with WENO schemes. Comput Fluids 189:82–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2019.05.019MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Otakeyama Y, Takeshi Yokomori T, Mizomoto M (2009) Stability of CH4—N2∕Air jet diffusion fame for various burner rim thicknesses. Proc Combust Inst 32:1091–1097.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2008.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang L, Choi JY, Yang V (2015) Supersonic combustion and flame stabilization of coflow ethylene and air with splitter plate. J Propul Power 2015:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B35740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drummond JP, Rogers RC, Hussaini MY (1987) A numerical model for supersonic reacting mixing layers. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 64:39–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(87)90032-6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans JS, Schexnayder Jr CJ, Beach Jr HL (1978) Application of a two-dimensional parabolic computer program to prediction of turbulent reacting flows. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780012520.pdf

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations