Recent Advances in Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Scramjet Combustor Flow Fields

M Deepu, Associate Member S S Gokhale, Fellow S Jayaraj, Fellow

A survey of experimental and numerical efforts to model the complex flow field generated by mixing and reaction of fuel injection in supersonic combustor has been made and presented in this paper. Recent interest in developing airbreathing propulsion devices incorporating supersonic combustor has forced many researchers to develop a configuration giving efficient mixing and combustion, also meeting the requirements of flame holding and completion of combustion with sufficient stabilisation in the flow field. Many experimental and numerical analyses have been reported during the last few decades regarding the characteristics of the complex flow field resulting due to fuelair mixing and combustion. Computer aided postprocessing of the data from measurement or computation could provide realistic picture of process occurring in combustors. Experimental results widely used in CFD code validations are discussed in detail.
Keywords: Scramjet; Supersonic combustion; Turbulent reacting flows

NOTA NOTATION

Aj c p uj U V YH 2

: : : : : : : : : : :

area of jet velocity of sound pressure velocity of jet convective velocity vortex swirl velocity mass fraction of hydrogen vortex circulation density vorticity vortex angular velocity

INTRODUCTION The recent interest in single stage to orbit trans atmospheric vehicle has lead to the development of a hypersonic flight1,2, which incorporates a supersonic combustor. Supersonic Combustion Ramjet engine (SCRAMJET) benefits from the better performance of air breathing propulsion system. Scramjets need a combustor that should have efficient mixing and combustion of fuel with air at supersonic speeds without much pressure loss. Many experimental and numerical analyses have been reported during the last few decades regarding the characteristics of the complex flow field resulting due to
M Deepu is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, N S S College of Engineering, Palakkad 678 008, Kerala; S S Gokhale is with the Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai 600 036; and S Jayaraj is with the Department of Mechanical NIT, Engineering; NIT, Calicut 673 601, Kerala. This paper (modified) was received on April 20, 2006. Written discussion on this paper will be entertained till July 31, 2007.

fuelair mixing and combustion. Many fuel injection and flame holding techniques which can have efficient fuel oxidant mixing with accurate burning rate have been developed but there is always a tradeoff between mixing effectiveness and pressure drop occurring inside the combustor affecting the total propulsive thrust available at the nozzle. Effective design3 of supersonic combustors, based on their mixing and flame holding capabilities, by various analytical and experimental studies have been the object of many investigators. Fundamental configurations employing direct injection of fuel to supersonic flow from circular, elliptical holes or slots are found to be ineffective due to the higher pressure loss associated with them. Various new concepts4 leading to increase in mixing effectiveness within the short residence time of fuelair mass inside the combustor with reduced shock losses have been devised recently, such as, swept ramps, aerodynamic ramps and cantilever injectors. Many numerical investigations could accurately demonstrate the complex flow field with reaction, well supported by experimental findings. Recent advances in experimental and numerical analyses of supersonic turbulent reacting and non reacting flow fields are reviewed here. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has proven to be an invaluable tool for the analysis of such complex flow fields5. Although experimental techniques and results are briefly discussed, the main objective is to give insight to the contributions from CFD community towards portraying such a complex flow situation with the support of available experimental data. Mixing and combustion process in supersonic combustors are generally modelled for basic geometries, which will serve the purpose of an ideal combustor. Experimental data can be used for the validations for such basic geometries and some numerical analyses that could survive the ordeal of standard experimental result have been discussed in detail. 13

Vol 88, May 2007

FUNDAMENTAL FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF SUPERSONIC COMBUSTORS Various injection schemes of different geometrical configurations6 and flow conditions have been investigated in the past two decades. With increasing combustor Mach number, the degree of fuelair mixing that can be achieved through the natural convective and diffusive processes is reduced, leading to an overall decrease in combustion efficiency and thrust. Because of these difficulties, attention turned to the development of techniques for enhancing the rate of fuelair mixing in the combustor. To a large extent, for given conditions, the net heat release achieved in a scramjet combustor is driven by the efficiency and effectiveness of the fuel injection. Performance of a supersonic combustor system depends on efficient injection and complete burning. Future hypersonic vehicles are expected to require the performance and operability benefits from airbreathing propulsion systems as it is providing high specific impulse. The use of supersonic combustors in such vehicles requires efficient supersonic combustion in combustor lengths short enough to be compatible with practical engine sizes. Supersonic combustion process is controlled by both chemical kinetics and mixing. Turbulent mixing is produced by the decay of concentration difference between eddies of differing chemical composition. Thus, there is always a tradeoff between the thrust available at engine nozzle due to low combustion efficiency and losses due to mixing energy. Two important aspects of greater concern from fuel injection process are the degree of turbulent fuel mixing and its transport. Injection effectiveness measures the degree of fuel penetration and injection efficiency measures the degree of turbulent fuel mixing and transport within the short residence time. In addition to the key issues, there are other obstacles in the way of development of supersonic combustor. Among these, wall friction and heating at high Mach number on combustor body affecting aerodynamic performance and durability of combustor is of greater importance. Also, there are material limitations in terms of maximum temperature produced by burning of a typical fuel injected. Some of the important terms used in the analysis of scramjet combustor flow fields are described here. Momentum Flux Ratio ( J ) Gruber, et al 7 conducted a series of experiments to demonstrate injectant penetration depth as a function of various flow parameters. Various studies8,9 have used a principal controlling parameter, known as the momentum flux ratio of the jet to the free stream. This is essentially, the dynamic pressure ratio given by

matched condition that is where the static pressure of the jet is equal to the effective backpressure. It is found that it produced a more optimum penetration than simply over pressurising the jet as it is resulting only a reduced amount of shock loss. ( Mixing Efficiency ( mix ) Mao, et al 11 defined mixing efficiency as that fraction of the least available reactant that would react if the fuel air mixture were brought to a chemical equilibrium without additional local or global mixing.

(2) where

where Y H 2 is the stochiometric hydrogen mass fraction; and f is the stochiometric hydrogen fuel/air mass ratio. ( Total Pressure Loss Parameter ( ) In the analysis of scramjet combustor flow fields, the total pressure loss is quantified by the mass averaged parameter introduced by Fuller, et al 8, defined as

(3)

where

A high velocity field significantly offsets the reduction in the total pressure loss parameter due to the total pressure losses, since it would imply a higher mass flow in the area under consideration. Vorticity in the Flow Field When a supersonic flow passes over a ramp or a backward facing step, it generates shock or expansion waves or its combination. Rogers, et al 12 argued that this leads to the generation of the vorticity by baroclinic torque, since density and pressure gradients are not parallel. The formulation which gives vorticity is (4) Leibovich13 has developed a criterion that permits one to

(1) Schetz and Billing9, 10 suggested that the injection pressure 14

IE(I) JournalAS

select ramp angles that shed unstable vorticity, and is given by (5) CONFIGURATIONS INJECTOR CONFIGURATIONS USED IN SCRAMJETS The fundamental aspects bring success to a supersonic combustor are efficient injection, mixing and reaction processes occurring inside the chamber. The transverse jet injected to supersonic cross flow represents a possible configuration for fuel delivery in supersonic combustors. Many investigations 1416 of the transverse jet in supersonic cross flow analyse the under expanded injection flow field and analytical description of the injectant penetration as a function of various flow parameters. Wall Injection into Supersonic Flow At high speeds, the normal injection configuration is more useful in facilitating mixing and tangential injection is preferred in low speeds. Schlieran photographs and other flow visualisation aids, such as, particle image velocymetry (PIV) and Raleigh/Mie scattering imaging reveal the presence of a bow shock wave upstream of the jet, Mach disc formed after the turning of the jet in the direction of the cross flow, the recirculations formed in the vicinity of jet expansion and also in the region where the bow shock is interacting with the upcoming boundary layer on the plate upstream of the jet. Other interesting factors are the formation of a pair of counter rotating vortices near the jet, horse shoe vortices formed in the near wall region from the vorticity within the cross flow boundary layer and vorticity generated by wall pressure gradient resulting from the jetfree stream interaction and also the wake vortex system. A perspective view of the jet cross flow interaction as given by Lee, et al 17 is shown in Figure 1. The pattern of the flow at the circular injector base can be understood from the oil flow images18,19. Circular and non
Approach flow (M>1) Separation shock Jet shock structure (barrel shock and Mach disk)

circular jets exhibit different flow structures. Gruber, et al 20 conducted a series of experiments to show the differences in flow pattern of injection from circular and elliptical nozzles where one finds clear evidences of the influence of transport of shear layer eddies and nature of the upstream bow shock and its associated separation region. An experimental analysis of injectant penetration and mixing of angled injection to supersonic stream were conducted by Bayley, et al 21. The authors used planar laserinduced iodine fluorescence for the measurements of injectant mole fraction. It was found that the injectant penetrates more as angle of injection is increased and vortex region dominates in the region of angled jet. Figure 2 gives a comparison of injectant penetration for various angles of injection. Injection Downstream of a Rearward Facing Step Flame holding is an important requirement in supersonic combustors. A backward facing step is helpful in creating the necessary recirculations for holding the sufficient quantity of fuel from the injected stream of fuel. Berman, et al 22 conducted numerical analysis of supersonic flow over a rearward facing step with hydrogen injection. The hydrogen injection is capable of changing the wave pattern of the incoming flow and the mechanism of combined convection and diffusion cause hydrogen to spread in the region between step and injector. This manifests the use of step in combustor. This supplements the earlier reacting flow studies of various scramjet combustors by Drummond23. Wind tunnels will never be obsolete, as numerical models must always be validated using the experimental data. McDaniel, et al 24, 25 reported their efforts to provide an extensive database for a unit supersonic combustor. In its first part, the authors provide the data for nonreactive mixing flows and of the hydrogenair combustion data set in second part. The test case chosen was Mach 2 flow over rearward facing step with staged transverse injection down stream of the step. Measurements in supersonic flows require the use of non
Maximum injectant mole fraction

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0 2 4 6 8 10

60 45 30

Jet boundary

Threedimensional bow shock

Counter rotating vortex pair Wake region Horse shoe vortex region

X/D
jet cross flow Figure 2 Comparison of injectant penetration for various angles of injection 2 1

Figure 1 Perspective interaction17

view

of

the

Vol 88, May 2007

15

Reflected ramp induced shock

21.29 mm

30

.48

Ramp lip shock M

mm

d = 1.93 mm P0 = 274 kPa T0 = 300 K

3

Expansion region H2 jet

Fuel plume

Z
mm .18

X /D
0

+5

X Ramp induced shock Y

Mach disk

Recirculation region

Figure 3 Schematic representation of the experimental set up used by McDaniel, et al 2 4

Figure 4 Schematic representation of the flow field of injection from ramp 3 3

intrusive diagnostic technique to avoid the disturbances generated by the physical probe. Nonreacting flow measurements techniques were based on laserinduced fluorescence from iodine molecules seeded in to mainstream. Iodine has a strong visible emission spectrum, easily accessible by laser systems. Seeding with iodine will not perturb the flow field thermodynamic states and does not attenuate the laser beam or induce tapping of fluorescence. The schematic representation of experimental set up used by McDaniel, et al 24 is shown in Figure 3. In an attempt to provide a quality data set appropriate to the validation of CFD models, Ebrahimi26,27 provides experimental data for primary flow parameters associated with basic geometries of scramjet. Experiments in Reacting and Nonreacting Mixing Layers Experiments on nonreacting free shear layers is to determine the mixing rate for free shear layers of two different gas species. Experiments have shown that a rapid decrease in mixing efficiency as Mach number is increased into the supersonic regime. Winant and Browand28 proposed the vortexpairing model for low speed mixing layer which is applicable only in subsonic regions in flow field. Effect of density on decreased mixing efficiency with Mach number is described by Brown and Roshko29. Later, Papamouschou and Roshko30 extended their study. Sarkar and Balakrishnan31 attempted to explain decreased mixing efficiency to neglect the fluctuating dilatation in the pressure strain correlation that appears in the turbulent kinetic energy transport equation of standard twoequation Reynolds averaged NavierStokes flow solvers. Ramp based Fuel Injectors Ramped fuel injectors are found to cause better mixing of the fuel32. Tangential injection is more preferred in combustors as it suffers only less pressure loss at the expense of less fuel penetration. As the flow crosses the ramp an oblique shock wave is produced which get reflected from the top wall and interact with the injected stream from the ramp. A mach disc is formed in the injected stream which blocks further expansion of the jet. Other interesting factors are the formation of a pair of counter rotating vortices near the jet and horse shoe vortices formed due to the stream wise vorticity. A schematic of the same is given in Figure 4. 16

This design of combustor allows for nearly parallel injection of the fuel which enhances the available thrust of the engine since shock losses are minimum compared to combustors using normal injection. Mixing is enhanced by creating streamwise vorticity by two mechanisms. Vorticity is first created as the high pressure flows above the ramps. The spillage further enhanced by creating a spanwise sweep to the ramps. Downstream of the ramps, vorticity is created through the baroclinic torque mechanism by the interaction of oblique shocks with injected fuel. Aso, et al 34 conducted experimental and numerical tests to study the effect of swept angle of ramp in supersonic combustors. For experiments, the authors used supersonic wind tunnel, whose nominal Mach number is 4.0 and total pressure is 1.3 MPa. In the test section, the flat plate model is installed, whose diagram is shown in Figure 5. Interchangeable mount is set on the model and by changing the amount, various types of injection are tested. From their volume fraction measurements, it is concluded that the oblique injection is more effective in the mixing than the parallel injection. Furthermore, it turned out that oblique injection generate smaller disturbance on the flat plate surface flow than parallel injection from the surface flow visualisation pictures. AbdelSalam, et al 35, 36 conducted a series of numerical tests related to ramp fuel injectors. An important contribution in this regard was directed towards the analysis of the effect of ramp swept angle in the performance of combustor. Increase in side sweep angle is found to have an active role in enhanced mixing rates. Mohieldin, et al 37 conducted a numerical study of supersonic mixing and combustion using unstructured grid for exploring more physical aspects related to the injection from a swept ramp in to supersonic flow. Their
y x Mount z
24 150 130 39

10

265

x 520

10 74.9 10

All dimensions are in mm

Figure 5 Details of swept ramp injector used for mixing studies of Aso, et al 3 4

IE(I) JournalAS

13

analysis uses the famous commercial CFD code FLUENT as it is widely used for midspeed applications due to its capability to handle high speed as well as low speed flows. Aerodynamic Injectors Aerodynamic ramp is the new generation fuel injection technique with lower pressure loss. Advantage of such a modified hole for fuel injection is that, the flow field produced by the injection leaves a secondary core of the jet plume nearer to the wall. An attempt to capitalise on the effects of an aerodynamic injector array in a scramjet combustor were first numerically studied by Eklund and Gruber38 and then experimentally by Gruber, et al 39. Latest design comprising an array of nine such aerodynamic fuel injection ports, were designed so as to maximise axial jet induced vorticity and to use this to lift the plume into the flow. Qualitative understanding of such flows were done using shadowgraph and surface flow visualisation pictures given by Jacobson, et al 40. The aerodynamic fuel injector40 is shown in Figure 6. Computational study of an ethylene fueled scramjet combustor employing an aerodynamic ramp fuel injector and a cavity flame holder has been performed by Eklund, et al 41. This was aimed to focus on hydrocarbon fuels rather than hydrogen fuel and capitalise on the higher density and easier storage of hydrocarbon fuels. Studies of Stouffer and Gruber42 show that the performance of the aerodynamic ramp fuel injector was disappointing. It is because the individual fuel jets of the injector rapidly merged into a single plume that resulted in a relatively poor fuelair distribution over the cavity flame holder, and overall reduced mixing within the combustor. The aero ramp injector showed somewhat higher local total pressure losses than the singlehole injector. This was due to the higher composite angle injection of the aeroramp array and the multiple shock structures from the two rows of jets. Although the total pressure losses appeared more substantial, the mass averaged total pressure loss parameter shows the aeroramp to have only slightly higher overall losses in the area studied. The aeroramp produced larger separation zones in front, in between, and behind the injector jets. This would allow more opportunity for flame holding in a high enthalpy flow, but would also create hot spots on the surface near the injector. The plume of the aeroramp had a larger plume area than the singlehole injector due to lateral spreading.

Cantilever Fuel Injectors Parent and Sislian43 conducted numerical studies of mixing efficiencies of cantilevered ramp and Waitz ramp injector44. For the analysis the authors used Favre averaged NavierStokes equations for multiple species with turbulence model. The study shows the mixing efficiency variation with convective Mach number. Cantilevered design has the advantage that shock is formed under the injectors providing contiguous shock surface spanwise direction of the injector array, which will increase the baroclinic effect and hence larger mixing efficiency. Figure 7 gives the geometry and compares the mixing efficiency of planar, free and cantilevered jets. The cantilever injection geometry is considered that is thought to embody the characteristics of both injection techniques. Shock B is responsible for the crossstream shear, and shock A for the baroclinic effect, both of which generate strong longitudinal vortices. However, in the present design, in addition to the side wall vortices generated by the crossstream shear, strong vortices will be produced behind the bluffbody of the injector, as in the case of a lowangle wall fuel injector. These vortices will further enhance the mixing process. Although it can be considered as a candidate for fuel injection in scramjet combustors, the proposed cantilevered ramp injector is primarily considered for use in shockinduced combustion ramjets, where fuelair mixing should take place without combustion until a specific location in the propulsive duct of the engine. Cavity based Fuel Injectors Microscale mixing is essential as it promotes rapid reaction, but mixing alone does not initiate combustion process. Once ignition is established, combustion can be prolonged efficiently with the assistance of proper mixing. Cavity flame holders designed by the Central Institution of Aviation Motors (CIAM) in Moscow, were used for the first time in a joint French/Russian dual mode scramjet flight test. Many recent 45,46 studies reveal that use of cavities have improved flame stabilisation and combustion efficiency. A cavity exposed to a supersonic flow produces sustained oscillations which will considerably alter the flow properties in its premises. This has actually motivated many researchers47 49 in carrying out experimental and numerical studies to reveal its complete physics. The recirculations inside cavity increase residence time of the
C

Sh

oc

Fuel
c ho k A

Figure 6 Aerodynamic fuel injector 4 0

C Figure 7 Geometry of cantilevered ramp 4 3

Vol 88, May 2007

17

fluid entering in it. It is known that the growth rate of the mixing layer between supersonic air and gaseous fuel in a scramjet combustor decreases as the convective Mach number increases due to compressibility effects. Studies of Yu and Schadow50 and Kumar, et al 51 suggested that the high frequency oblique oscillating shock wave emanating from cavities exposed to the supersonic flow field (reacting and nonreacting) are capable of improving the mixing. Shape of the cavity can be controlled so as to reduce the pressure losses associated with oscillations, as this is essential in providing the required thrust at the nozzle. The idea of providing cavity in supersonic combustors improves its flame holding capabilities and reduction in induction time (which enhance autoignition) as it creates a recirculation region with a hot pool of radicals. Basically, there are two types of cavity flow, namely, open and closed. The open cavity flow is said to occur when lengthtodepth ratio, L /D < 10. These cavities are found to be dominated either by longitudinal or transverse pressure oscillations depending on L /D ratio and the Mach number. If the cavity is filled by a large single vortex, transverse mechanism controls the vortex, whereas, mixing will be controlled by longitudinal mechanism if many vortices are filled in a lengthy cavity. For a cross flow at M = 2.5 such a transition can be seen if L /D is changed between 2 and 3. The longitudinal cavity oscillations are produced by the impingement of shear layer at the cavity rear wall, which produces an increase in the wall pressure. This impingement of shear layer creates an acoustic wave of velocity equal to local sound speed and hits on the aft wall, creating a small recirculation at its top. This recirculation will later convect to downstream of the combustor producing oscillations in flow field. Thus, it results in mass addition and removal at cavity rear wall. ForL /D > 10, the cavity flow is termed as closed, because here the free shear layer attaches to the lower wall. Such an arrangement will have high drag losses due to high pressure near rear end and comparatively low pressure towards the front. Here, the shear layer is unable to span entire length of the cavity, and hence these are less preferred in scramjet combustors. Flow field schematics45 of open cavity flow for L /D < 7 and closed cavity flow for L /D > 10 are shown in Figure 8. BenYakar, et al 52 conducted experiments with OH-PLIIF visualisation of hydrogen transverse jet injection into reacting and nonreacting supersonic flow. Study showed the indication of the autoignition of hydrogen jet in air crossflow simulating flight Mach10 conditions. In this study, the OH fluorescence appears first in the recirculation region upstream of the jet and extends along the outer edge of the jet plume. Settles, et al 53 conducted an experiment to study the effect of supersonic free shear layer reattachment over ramp body placed after a cavity. Here the planar shear layer impinging on the ramp inclined by 20 behind a cavity. Lee and Kim17 suggested different methods for mixing 18

Transverse mechanism

Longitudinal mechanism

Transition at L/D 2 ~ 3

D L (a)

(b) Figure 8 Flow field schematics 45 of (a) open cavity flow for L/D < 7 and (b) closed cavity flow for L/D > 10

augmentations of the transverse injection in a scramjet combustor, based on the fact that the main factor controlling the mixing characteristics in transverse injection is the effective backpressure and the the streamwise vorticity generated by baroclinic torque. A three dimensional NavierStokes code adopting was used the upwind method of Roes flux difference splitting scheme. The authors have studied the main parameters of fuelair mixing, such as, mixing rate, penetration distance and stagnationpressure loss. The schematic and pressure variation plots of Settles experiment53 are shown in Figure 9. Fuel Injection from Struts Various studies5456 have shown that incomplete mixing, shock waves and viscous effects are the main factors leading to the thrust loss in supersonic combustors, though these effects aid mixing. Strut injectors offer a possibility for parallel injection without causing much blockage to the incoming stream of air and also the fuel can be injected at the core of the stream. Tomioka, et al 57 studied the effects of staged injection from struts. Gerlinger and Bruggemann58 conducted a numerical investigation of hydrogen injection from strut to foresee the effects of lip thickness of the injector in mixing. It was concluded that increase in lip thickness causes an increase in mixing layer due to the enhanced diffusivity associated with it but it do not have much effect on mixing efficiency. Total pressure loss in the combustor is less affected by the height of the strut. EXPERIMENTAL EXPERIMENTAL DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS USED IN SCRAMJET COMBUSTORS The experimental condition in supersonic combustion flow is extremely hostile. The measuring process should not perturb the flow field for making the accurate measurement in such compressible turbulent reacting and high enthalpy flows. The advanced diagnostic tools used recently for such applications are reviewed here. Coherent antistokes Raman scattering (CARS) is an excellent technique for measurement in high enthalpy supersonic test facilities, because of its capability to provide

IE(I) JournalAS

Turbulent Free shear layer BL

Compression Redeveloping BL
Sh ock

M =2.82
Recirculation 20 30 40 50 Shear layer station
20 30

20 R 60

60 cm 50 ion 40 stat p Ram 4

3 2 1

Figure 9 The schematic and pressure variation plots of Settles experiment 5 3

instantaneous information regarding pressure, temperature, concentration of species, vibrational and rotational spectra of molecules in flow etc. In nonintrusive measurement technique like CARS, data acquisition and its analysis is the prime task. Charged couple devices (CCD) cameras and various types of spectrometers acquire data. Electronic signal processors process these signals. Computers gather these processed information and provide realistic plots of various quantities by doing inbuilt mathematical operations, such as, probability density function (PDF) based methods. Such plots depict the true physics inside combustors. Yu, et al59 made measurements using CARS in supersonic combustors employing strut injectors. Unstable resonator spatially enhanced detection method was used in which a twobeam threedimensional phase matching configuration is used for alignment. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) is a planar technique providing instantaneous twodimensional velocity fields. Development of double frame CCD cameras extend the application of PIV. It is widely used in analysis of non reacting supersonic flow fields. The application of PIV to highspeed flows with high velocity gradients requires the use of submicron tracer particles to minimise the particle slip velocity. Since, the scattering crosssection of these particles is very small, an intensive light source is necessary to obtain Mie scattering signals sufficiently strong for detection. Another requirement for high velocity flows is that the illuminating system must generate successive pulses reproducibly within very short time delays to resolve the speed accurately. Weisgerber, et al 60 made measurements using PIV in a supersonic tunnel with and without combustion. The structure of the reactive mixing layer between the fuel and the air has been investigated by means of PIV. Measurements are based on two successive images of tracer particles seeding the flow. The correlation between the two images yields the quasiinstantaneous twodimensional velocity field. Nanoshadowgraphs uses spark shadowgraphs taken using a Nanopulser spark with an exposure time of nanoseconds and it is possible to see the turbulent eddy structures in the flow significantly larger than 0.01 mm. Surface oil flow visualisation uses silicone oil mixed with two colours of fluorescent dye. Studies of Jacobsen, et al 40 used a thin layer of fluorescent green oil, which was placed all around the fuel injector. The surface oil flow patterns

were also recorded on videotape during tunnel operation. The authors also employed pressure sensitive paint (PSP) measurements of the static pressure fields around the injector. The PSP employed is fluoroacrylic copolymer (FIB) binder and incorporates the fluorinated platinum porphyrin species. Planar laser induced iodine fluorescence (PLIIF) is an established24, 25 technique used in the analysis of scramjet combustor. Menon, et al 61 used Nd:YAG laser and acetone (introduced using a fine atomising spray injector) to measure the fuel distribution and the fuelair mixing downstream of the injector. Studies of McDaniel, et al 24 also employed simpler techniques, such as, thermographic phosphor wall temperature imaging and laser induced iodine fluorescence (LIIF) NUMERICAL STUDIES OF TURBULENT REACTING FLOWS IN SCRAMJETS Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has proven to be an invaluable tool for the design and analysis of high speed propulsion devices. Massively parallel computing, together with the maturation of robust CFD codes, has made it possible to perform simulations of complete engine flow paths. NavierStokes simulations are now widely used in the determination of optimum fuel injection configurations. Because the smallest scales of turbulence are very large compared to molecular dimensions, turbulence is a continuum phenomenon. Consequently, the Navier Stokes, energy and massconservation equations contain all of the physics of turbulent fluid motion. The difficulty stems from the fact that turbulence is extremely complicated. Sustained by vortex stretching, the phenomenon is inherently three dimensional and time dependent. Modified model, called Renormalisation Group (RNG) is widely used in most of the NavierStokes solvers for scramjet combustor flow field analysis, and is demonstrated accurately by Papp and Ghia62. Hydrogen and hydrocarbon fuels, such as, kerosene are most suitable for hypersonic propulsion systems, because of its high potential of heat release and rapid mixing with air. Modelling of Airfuel Mixing in Scramjet Combustor Due to the inherent difficulty in handing two phenomena of differing time scales (flow and reaction) and limited computer resources to handle more variables, earlier attempts in modelling scramjet combustor were directed towards studying the mixing and fuel transport corresponding to different geometries working in different flow conditions. Along with their experiments, Fujimori, et al 63 did numerical studies of gas injection from circular and slot ports. Implicit formulations involving Cebeci Smith turbulence model and Harteen type TVD scheme were employed for discretising convective terms. The wall pressure distributions obtained were in close agreement with their own experimental values, which are widely used for code validation. Aso, et al 19 recently analysed similar twodimensional injection from slot injection using high resolution flux splitting schemes. Numerical study of a 19

Vol 88, May 2007

circular jet in supersonic cross flow done by Tam, et al 64 analyse the fluid dynamic mechanisms inherent from circular jet injection into a supersonic crossflow. The computational results were obtained using the VULCAN (viscous upwind algorithm for complex flow analysis) NavierStokes code. Three different types of twoequation turbulence models were used to predict the fuel mixing process, including the new version of the Wilcox model, the MenterSST model and the MenterBSL model. In addition, a tophat profile boundary condition for the jet exit using the model was tested. The Wilcox and BSL models have better overall predictions in terms of surface pressure comparisons. The MenterSST model overpredicted the separation region upstream of the jet injector, while the tophat profile calculation produced a high concentration fuel plume at the lateral side which might be caused by high vorticity. Donohue and McDaniel65 studied injection from ramp injector using SPARK code. Madabhushi, et al 66 did the computational modelling of mixing process of ramp injector using upwinding based timedependent NavierStokes solver (UTNS) and it could predict the mixing phenomena. Some of the numerical studies on mixing processes associated with different geometries are discussed earlier. Numerical Modelling of Reacting Flows in Scramjet Combustor Supersonic reacting flow field can be simulated by adding finite rate chemistry to standard compressible Navier Stokes equations. Both turbulence and chemical kinetics are important, since the residence time is much smaller. Explicit treatment of all conservation terms with reaction chemistry results in stiff equations and it will degrade the performance of numerical method flow field and chemical kinetics with differing time scales need to be solved simultaneously. Existence of several non equilibrium states creates challenges in solution procedure. Bussing and Murman67 introduced the method of pre conditioning the conservation equations in conjunction with chemical source terms alone being treated implicitly. Such a method has the advantage of both explicit and implicit methods. Use of appropriate reaction kinetics is very important in combustion modelling. Jachimowski68 developed a detailed reaction mechanism and is widely used in combustor analysis. Yoon69 developed a finite element solution algorithm for high speed flows and compressible chemical reacting flows. This method is based on TaylorGalerkin finite element method, allows flow equations and chemical source terms solved separately on the physical time scales. Frozen, equilibrium and finite rate chemistry, based on twostep model and eighteenstep model for hydrogen air, are treated. This technique is used for solving various basic scramjet combustor flow fields. Wilson and MacCormack70 developed an axisymmetric, fully implicit finite volume solver for detailed hydrogen air mechanism and validated using a ballistic range 20

experiment with shock induced combustion, can be used for verification of supersonic combustor test cases. An implicit finite volume, lower upper symmetric over relaxation scheme was developed by Shuen and Yoon71 for the study of mixing and chemical reactions in the flow fields of ramjets and scramjets. The code has been used to study the sonic hydrogen injection from a slot on top wall of the combustor to Mach 4 air stream. A lowerupper symmetric GuassSeidel finite volume method was developed by Gerlinger and Algermissen72, in which the combustion with 20 step (nine species) finite rate chemistry coupled implicitly with fluid motion. For turbulence closure, an algebraic Baldwin Lomax, as well as q low Reynolds number model were used. For the test case of nonreactive flow with air wall injection to supersonic stream, detailed wall pressure analysis has been conducted and validated with experimental results. Next a channel flow with wall injection and suction are investigated. Also the pressure and density variations are analysed. Another test case with mixing and combustion of hydrogen wall injections are studied by plotting concentration plots of species produced in reaction. Kammath and Mao73 reported that the SHIP 3D PNS code provides the capability to perform three dimensional computations of scramjet combustors efficiently at high flight Mach numbers of 10 and above, where the combustor flow is largely supersonic. The code is having Favre Averaged, parabolised equations for conservations of mass momentum and total energy. Solutions are computed using the famous traditional SIMPLE, SIMPLER or SIMPLEC algorithms. Here, the discretised equations are solved line by line using tridiagonal matrix solver. Turbulence is modelled at two equation level by high and low Re models. It is capable of taking hydrogenair chemistry either of frozen, one step complete, partial reaction, four reaction or seven species equilibrium model. SHIP 3D PNS solver was used for solving the fuel injection from ramp in supersonic combustor. Probability Density Function Modelling of Reacting Flow Fields The assumed probability density function (PDF) approach has been widely used74 in the numerical study of supersonic reacting free shear flows. Pope75 described the procedure for obtaining the Reynolds stresses for the two dimensional flows. In this type of analysis the turbulence chemistry interactions are treated using the assumed joint PDF that accounts for fluctuations in both temperature and species production rates. Baurle, et al 76 and Girimaji77 used this type of modelling for predicting the fluctuations. The law of mass action and the joint PDF formulations for temperature and species composition at each location can be written as

(6)

IE(I) JournalAS

Here, wm represents species production rates and 1, 2, ...,ns represent densities of each species. PDF temperature is often described by the Gaussian distribution as (7) Recent studies presumes the statistical independence of temperature and composition. Frankel, et al 78 used both beta and Gaussian distribution for describing temperature. Works of Gaffney, et al 79 used the same type of relationship and showed that PDF has a significant role in getting the ignition point. Narayan and Girimaji80 combined a moment method to account for temperature variations with multi variate beta distribution. Baurle, et al 81 used this formulation for describing the flow field generated by ramp fuel injector. Raju 82 successfully demonstrated the application of various PDF formulation in standard turbulent reacting flow situations. Chen, et al 83 have computed for all available benchmark using National Combustion Code (NCC), which is based on PDF models. Some of the numerical studies on combustion process associated with different geometries are discussed earlier. A detailed survey of various experimental and numerical attempts to analyse scramjet combustor has been already presented. A survey was performed to identify experimental measurement programs with sufficient documentation of the geometry and flow conditions required for CFD code validation. The validation of CFD codes appropriate for
Table 1 Details of experiments widely used for CFD code validation Experiment Burrows and Kurkov Geometry 2D combustor H2 injection behind step Interested Reference number item Mixing, ignition 84 and product concentration and temperature profiles Separation and wall pressure Wall pressure distribution Mixing, ignition and product concentration profile Wall pressure distribution Pressure distribution and concentration profile Product concentration and temperature profiles Reattachment pressure Wall pressure distribution 85 18, 19, 34, 63 86,87

subsonic through hypersonic applications requires careful consideration of the physical processes encountered in flight regimes, and detailed comparison with quality experimental data sets that simulate these processes. The necessary data of such celebrated publications is summarised in Table 1. CONCLUSIONS Mixing, penetration and combustion characteristics of injected fuel and air in scramjet combustor for different types of injectors have been reviewed. Various experimental studies on mixing and injectant penetration with different imaging techniques were considered. Increase in jet to free stream momentum flux ratio will result in the increase of jet penetration to free stream for all kinds of jets. With elliptical shaped wall jet, one can get about 25% more lateral spreading when compared to the circular jet of same kind. Injector orientation plays an important role in the strength of the bow shock, with the shocks created by oblique injector being substantially weak compared to transverse injector. Works of related interest, other than those mentioned here reveal the same facts. Mixing efficiency and penetration will have opposite effect on total pressure loss occurring within the combustor affecting thrust at nozzle. Therefore, optimising the injector shape and its orientation with optimum performance are the main interest of the researchers working in this field presently. REFERENCES
1. J M Seiner, S M Dash and D C Kenzakowski. Historical Survey on Enhanced Mixing in Scramjet Engines. AIAA Paper 994869 , 1999. 2. J M Tishkoff, J P Drummond, T Edwards and A S Nejad. Future Direction of Supersonic Combustion Research: Air Force/ NASA Workshop on Supersonic Combustion. AIAA Paper 97 1017, 1997. 3. N Chinzei, T Komuro, K Kudou, A Murakami, K Tani, G Masuya and Y Wakamatsu. Effects of Injector Geometry on Scramjet Combustor Performance. Journal of Propulsion and Power , vol 9, no 1, 1993, p 146. 4. D W Bogdanoff. Advanced Injection and Mixing Techniques for Scramjet Combustors. Journal of Propulsion and Power , vol 10, no 2, 1994, p 183. 5. C E Grosch, J M Seiner, M Y Hussaini and T L Jackson. Numerical Simulation of Mixing Enhancement in a Hot Supersonic Jet. Physics of Fluids, vol 9, no 4, 1997, p 1125.

Smith Aso Henry and Beach

2D rearward step Circular and slot injection Axi symmetric nozzle

McDaniel McDaniel

Unswept ramp Staged injection

88 24

6. E T Curran and S N B Murthy. Scramjet Propulsion. AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics , vol 189, 2001. 7. M R Gruber, A S Nejad, T H Chen and J C Dutton. Mixing and Penetration Studies of Sonic Jets in a Mach 2 Free Stream. Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol 11, no 2, 1995, p 315. 8. E J Fuller, R B Mays, R H Thomas and J A Schetz. Mixing Studies of Helium in Air at Mach 6. AIAA Paper 912268 , 1991. 9. J A Schetz and F S Billing. Mixing of Transverse Jets and Wall Jets in Supersonic Flow. V V Kozlov and A V Dovgal (eds),Separated Flows and Jets , SpringerVerlag , Berlin, 1991. 10. J A Schetz and F S Billing. Penetration of Gaseous Jets Injected into a Supersonic Stream. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol 3, 1966, p 1658.

Cheng

Coaxial H2 air jet

89

Settle Baurle and Gruber

Cavity Cavity

53 48

Vol 88, May 2007

21

11. M Mao, R Wriggins and C R McClinton. Numerical Simulation of Transverse Fuel Injection. NASP CR 1089 , 1990. 12. R C Rogers, D P Capriotti and R W Guy. Experimental Supersonic Combustion Research at NASA Langley. AIAA Paper 982506 , 1998. 13. S Leibovich. Vortex Stability and Breakdown: Survey and Extension. AIAA Journal, vol 22, no 9, 1984, p 1192. 14. A D Cutler, G S Diskin, P M Danehy and J P Drummond. Fundamental Mixing and Combustion Experiments for Propelled Hypersonic Flight. AIAA Paper 20023879 , 2002. 15. J A Schetz, P F Hawkins and H Lehman. Structure of Highly under Expanded Transverse Jets in a Supersonic Stream. AIAA Journal, vol 5, no 5, 1966, p 882. 16. T F Fric and A Roshko. Vertical Structure in the Wake of a Transverse Jet. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol 279, 1994, p l. 17. S H Lee and H B Kim. Mixing and Combustion Augmentations of Transverse Injection in Scramjet Combustor . AIAA Paper 20010384 , 2001. 18. S Aso, M Tannou, S Maekawa, Y Ando, Y Yamane, and M Fukuda. A Study on Mixing Phenomena in Threedimensional Supersonic Flow with Circular Injection. AIAA940707 , 1994. 19. S Aso, K Shingo and K Inoue. Experimental and Computational Studies on Twodimensional Supersonic Mixing Flow Physics. AIAA Paper 20020236 , 2002. 20. M R Gurber, A S Nejad, T H Chen and J C Dutton. Transverse Injection From Circular and Elliptic Nozzles Into Supersonic Cross Flow. Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol 16, no 3, 2000, p 449. 21. D Bayley and R J Hartfield. Experimental Investigation of Angled Injection in a Compressible Flow. AIAA952414 , 1995. 22. H A Berman, J D Anderson and J P Drummond. Supersonic Flow over a Rearward Facing Step with Transverse Non Reacting Hydrogen Injection. AIAA Journal, vol 21, no 12, 1983, p 1707. 23. J P Drummond. Numerical Simulation of a Supersonic Chemically Reacting Mixing Layer . Ph D Dissertation, George Washington University, 1987. 24. J C McDaniel, D Fletcher, R Hartfield and S Hollo. Staged Transverse Injection into Mach 2 Flow behind a Rearward Facing Step: A 3D Compressible Test Case for Hypersonic Combustor Code Validation. AIAA Paper 915071 , 1991. 25. J C McDaniel, D Fletcher, R Hartfield and S Hollo. Staged Transverse Injection into Mach 2 Flow behind a Rearward Facing Step. AIAA Paper 968107 , 1996. 26. H B Ebrahimi, R C Ryder (Jr) and A Brankovic and N S Liu. A Measurement Archive for Validation of the National Combustion Code. AIAA Paper 20010811 , 2001. 27. H B Ebrahimi. Validation Database for Propulsion Computational Fluid Dynamics. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol 34, 1997, p 642. 28. C D Winant and F K Browand. Vortex Pairing: The Mechanism of Turbulent Mixing Layer Growth At Moderate Reynolds Number. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , vol 63, pt 2, 1974, p 237. 29. G L Brown and A Roshko. On Density Effects and Large Structure in Turbulent Mixing Layers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol 64, pt 4, 1974, p 775. 30. Papamouschou and A Roshko. The Compressible Turbulent Shear Layer : An Experimental Study. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol 197, 1988, p 453.

31. S Sarkar and L Balakrishnan. Application of a Reynolds Stress Turbulence Model to the Compressible Shear Layer . NASA ICASE Report No 9018 , 1990. 32. D R Eklund and S D Stoufer. A Numerical and Experimental Study of a Supersonic Combustor Employing Swept Ramp Injector. AIAA942819 , 1994. 33. M Deepu, S S Gokhale and S Jayaraj. Numerical Studies of Three Dimensional Mixing of Injection from an Unswept Ramp into Supersonic Flow. The First International Mach Reflection Symposium cum ShockVortex Interaction Workshop , Jeju Island, Korea, November 2004. 34. S Aso, Y Yamane, K Umii, K Tokunaga, Y Ando and K Sakata. A Study on Supersonic Mixing Flow Field with Swept Ramp Injectors. AIAA970397 , 1997. 35. T M Abdel-Salam, S N Tiwari and T O Mohieldin. Effects of Ramp Swept Angle in Supersonic Mixing. AIAA Paper 2000 2377, 2000. 36. T M AbdelSalam, S N Tiwari and T O Mohieldin. Three dimensional Numerical Study of a Scramjet Combustor. AIAA Paper 20020805 , 2002. 37. T O Mohieldin, T M AbdelSalam and S N Tiwari. Numerical Study of Supersonic Mixing and Combustion using Unstructured Grid. AIAA Paper 20000439 , 2000. 38. D R Eklund and M R Gruber. Study of a Supersonic Combustor Employing an Aerodynamic Ramp Pilot Injector . AIAA Paper 992249 , 1999. 39. M R Gruber, J Donbar, T Jackson, T Mathur, D R Eklund and F Billig. Performance of an Aerodynamic Ramp Fuel Injector in a Scramjet Combustor. AIAA Paper 20003708 , 2000. 40. L S Jacobson, S D Gallimore, J A Schetz, W F O'Brien and L P Goss. An Improved Aerodynamic Ramp Injector in Supersonic Flow. AIAA Paper 20010518 , 2001. 41. D R Eklund, R A Baurle and M R Gruber. Numerical Study of a Scramjet Combustor Fueled by an Aerodynamic Ramp Injector in Dualmode Combustion. AIAA Paper 20010379 , 2001. 42. S K Cox Stouffer and M R Gruber. Further Investigation of the Effects of Aerodynamic Ramp Design upon Mixing Characteristics. AIAA Paper 992238 , 1999. 43. B Parent, and J P Sislian. Turbulent Hypervelocity Fuel/Air Mixing by Cantilevered Ramp Injectors. AIAA20011888, 2001. 44. I A Waitz, F E Marble and E E Zukoski. Investigation of a Contoured Wall Injector for Hypervelocity Mixing Augmentation. AIAA Journal, vol 31, no 6, 1993, p 1014. 45. A BenYakar and R K Hanson. Cavity Flame Holders for Ignition and Flame Stabilisation in Scramjets: Review and Experimental Study. AIAA Paper 983122 , 1998. 46. A BenYakar and R K Hanson. Supersonic Combustion of Crossflow Jets and the Influence of Cavity Flame Holders. AIAA Paper 990484 , 1999. 47. K Yu, K J Wilson and K C Schadow. On the use of Combustor Wall Cavities for Mixing Enhancement. The Third ASME/JSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, FEDSM 997255, 1999. 48. R A Baurle and M R Gruber. A Study of Recessed Cavity Flow Fields for Supersonic Combustion Applications. AIAA Paper 980938 , 1998. 49. X Zhang and J A Edwards. An Investigation of Supersonic Oscillatory Cavity Flows Driven by Thick Shear Layers. Aeronautical Journal, 1990, p 355. 50. K H Yu and K C Schadow. Cavity Actuated Supersonic Mixing

22

IE(I) JournalAS

and Combustion Control. Combustion and Flame , vol 99, 1994, p 295. 5 1 . A Kumar, D M Bushnell and M Y Hussaini. Mixing Augmentation Technique for Hypervelocity Scramjets. Journal of Propulsion and Power, vo1 5, no 5, 1989, p 514. 52. A BenYakar, M R Karnel, C I Morris and R K Hanson. Hypersonic Combustion and Mixing Studies using Simultaneous OH-PLIF and Schlieren Imaging. AIAA Paper 98940 , 1998. 53. G S Settles, B K Baca, D R Williams and S M Bogdonoff. A Study of Reattachment of a Free Shear Layer in Compressible Turbulent Flow. AIAA Paper 801408 , 1980. 54. R A Lee, A Hosangadi, P A Cavallo and S M Dash. Application of Unstructured Grid Methodology to Scramjet Combustor Flow Fields. AIAA990087 , 1999. 55. R W Riggins, C R McClinton and P H Vitt. Thrust losses in Hypersonic Engines Part 1 : Methodology. Journal of Propulsion and Power , vo1 13, no 2, 1997, p 288. 56. R W Riggins, C R McClinton and P H Vitt. Thrust Losses in Hypersonic Engines Part 2 : Applications. Journal of Propulsion and Power, vo1 13, no 2, 1997, p 296. 57. S Tomioka, T Kanda, K Tani, T Mitani, T Shimura and N Chinzei. Testing of a Scramjet Engine with a Strut in M8 Flight Conditions. AIAA Paper 983134 , 1998. 58. P Gerlinger and D Bruggemann. Numerical Investigation of Hydrogen Strut Injections into Supersonic Air Flows. Journal of Propulsion and Power, vo1 16, no 1, 2000, p 22. 59. G Yu, J G Li, J R Zhao, D X Qian, B han and Y Li. Hydrogen Air Supersonic Combustion Study by Strut Injectors. AIAA 98 4512 , 1998. 60. H Weisgerber, R Martinuzzi and U Brummund. PIV Measurements in a Mach 2 Hydrogenair Supersonic Combustion. AIAA20011757, 2001. 61. S Menon, J Seitzmany, S Shaniz, F Genin, T Thao and K Miki. Experimental and Numerical Studies of Mixing and Combustion in Scramjet Combustors. AIAA 20043826 , 2004. 62. L Papp and K N Ghia. Application of the RNG Turbulence Model to the Simulation of Axisymmetric Supersonic Separated Base Flows. AIAA Paper 20010727 , 2001. 63. T Fujimori, M Kawai, H Ikeda S Aso and M Fukuda. Numerical Prediction of Two and Three Dimensional Sonic Gas Transverse Injection into Supersonic Flow. AIAA910415 , 1991. 64. C J Tam, R A Baurle and M R Gruber. Numerical Study of a Supersonic Cross Flow. AIAA992254 , 1999. 65. J M Donohue and J C McDaniel. Complete Three Dimensional Multiparameter Mapping of a Supersonic Ramp Injector Flow Field. AIAA Journal, vol 34, no 3, 1996. 66. R K Madabhushi, D Choi, T J Barber and S Orzag. Computational Modelling of Mixing Process for Scramjet Combustor Applications. AIAA 972638 , 1997. 67. T R A Bussing and E M Murman. Finite Volume Method for the Calculation of Compressible Chemically Reacting Flows. AIAA Journal, vol 26, 1988. 68. C J Jachimowski. An Analytical Study of the Hydrogen-Air Reaction Mechanism with Application to Scramjet Combustion. NASA TP2791 , 1988. 69. C S Yoon. Finite Element Analysis for Supersonic Combustion with Finite Rate Chemistry. Ph D Thesis, The Universty of Alabama in Huntsville, 1992.

70. G J Wilson and R W McCormack. Modelling Supersonic Combustion using a Fully Implicit Numerical Method. AIAA Journal, vol 30, no 4, 1992, p 1008. 71. J S Shuen and S Yoon. Numerical Study of Chemically Reacting Flows using a Lower Upper Symmetric Successive over Relaxation Scheme. AIAA Journal , vol 27, no 12, 1989, p 1752. 72. P Gerlinger and J Algermissen. Simulation of Supersonic Combustion Problems using an Implicit LU-SG Scheme and / Q Turbulence Closure. AIAA Paper , 1993. 73. P Kamath and M Mao. Scramjet Combustor Analysis with Ship 3D PNS Code. AIAA915090 , 1991. 74. R A Baurle. Modelling of High Speed Reacting Flows: Established Practices and Future Challenges. AIAA Paper 2004 0267 , 2004. 75. S B Pope. PDF Methods for Turbulent Reactive Flows. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, vol 11, 1985, p 119. 76. R A Baurle, A T Hsu and H A Hassan. Comparison of Assumed and Evolution PDFs in Supersonic Turbulent Combustion Calculations. AIAA Paper 943180 , 1994. 77. S S Girimaji. A Simple Recipe for Modelling Reaction Rates in Flows with Turbulent Combustion. AIAA Paper 911792 , 1991. 78. S H Frankel, J P Drummond and H A Hassan. A Hybrid Reynolds Averaged/PDF Closure Model for Supersonic Turbulent Combustion. AIAA Paper 901573 , 1990. 79. R L Gaffney, J A White, S S Girimaji and J P Drummond. Modelling Turbulent/Chemistry Interactions using Assumed PDF Methods. AIAA Paper 923638 , 1992. 80. J R Narayan, and S S Girimaji. Turbulent Reacting Flow Computations including Turbulence Chemistry Interactions. AIAA Paper 920342, 1992. 81. R A Baurle, Alexopoulos and H A Hassen. Analysis of Supersonic Combustor with Swept Ramp Injectors. AIAA95 2413 , 1995. 82. M S Raju. A Validation Summary of the NCC Turbulent Reacting/Nonreacting Spray Computations. AIAA Paper 2001 0806, 2001. 83. K H Chen, A T Norris, A Quealy and N S Liu. Benchmark Test Cases for the National Combustion Code. AIAA Paper 98 3855, 1998. 84. M C Burrows and A P Kurkov. Analytical and Experimental Study of Supersonic Combustion of Hydrogen in a Vitiated Air Stream. NASA TM X2828 , 1973. 85. H E Smith. Flow Field and Heat Transfer Downstream of a Rearward Facing Step in Supersonic Flow. Army Research Laboratory670056 . 86. J Henry and H L Beach. Hypersonic Air Breathing Propulsion Systems. NASA SP292, 1971 . 87. J S Evans and C J Schexnayder. Application of a Two Dimensional Parabolic Computer Program to Prediction of Turbulent Reacting F1lows. NASA TP1169 1978. 88. J C McDaniel, G Gaubha and K G Victor. Combustion of Hydrogen in Mach 2 Air using an Unswept Ramp Fuel Injector : A Test Case for CFD Code Validation. AIAA Ground Testing Conference , 1994. 89. T S Cheng, J A Wehrmeyer, R Pitz, O Jarret and J B Northam. Finite Rate Chemistry Effects in Mach 2 Reacting Flow. AIAA Paper 912320 , 1991.

Vol 88, May 2007

23