AIAA-98-0964

A COMPARISON OF TWO HYPERMIXING FUEL INJECTORS IN A SUPERSONIC COMBUSTOR Matthew J. Gaston*, Neil R. Mudford* and Frank Houwing * Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University College, University of New South Wales Canberra, ACT, Australia Dept. of Physics, The Faculties, Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200 Australia

Abstract
An experimental study has been undertaken to evaluate the performance of two hypermixing injectors designed for supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) applications. Supersonic mixing and combustion studied in a free-piston driven shock tunnel is examined using surface pressure measurements and shadowgraphy. Tests were conducted at two inlet Mach numbers: M=2.5 and M=3.7.

Experiment
Injectors
The two hypermixing injectors tested in this investigation are shown in Fig. 1 with the plane base injector which forms the datum for the study. The first hypermixing injector has a segmented blunt trailing edge and is referred to here as the castellated injector. The second hypermixing injector is a midplane version of the swept compression-expansion ramp injector similar to that used by Davis and Hingst2. Note that there are two and five nozzle versions of the plane base and castellated injectors.

Introduction
With the present interest in aerospace planes, considerable effort is being devoted to the development of propulsion systems that would power these vehicles. One such propulsion system is the supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) which involves combustion at supersonic speeds; that is both primary flow (such as air) and the injected fuel (such as hydrogen) have to mix and burn at supersonic velocities. However, it is known that mixing at high Mach numbers is not very efficient and significant efforts are therefore being made to study supersonic turbulent mixing and to seek ways to enhance the mixing. Several mixing enhancement devices have been proposed. One such class of devices is termed hypermixers. These have the basic objective of generating streamwise vorticity. It is hoped that the streamwise vorticity will sweep through and entrain a parallel-injected fuel jet, thereby increasing the fuelair interface area such that small-scale mixing is significantly increased1.
Copyright 1998 The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc. All rights reserved.

2 Nozzle Plane Base

2 Nozzle Castellated Swept CompressionExpansion Ramp

5 Nozzle Plane Base

5 Nozzle Castellated

Figure 1: Injector types. Earlier studies have shown that certain castellated trailing edge aerofoils have lower base drag than their blunt trailing edge counterparts in supersonic flow3. The drag reduction is primarily due to the entrainment of fluid from the upper surfaces of the projections into the recess regions. This geometry is similar to that of a straight expansion ramp. It was hoped that the benefit of reduced drag could be enjoyed at the same time as the induced flow promoted the mixing. Swept ramps are known to produce pairs of large counter-rotating streamwise vortices to enhance mixing1. The SCER (swept compression-expansion ramp) should also produce a pair of large and very strong counter-rotating streamwise vortices energised

1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIAA-98-0964
by the pressure difference between the faces of the compression and expansion ramps2. In addition to this source of streamwise vorticity, this injector is subject to shock-induced vorticity due to the positioning of the expansion surfaces and the associated recompression shock waves4. Mixing may be further enhance by a shock-vortex interaction between the two5. It is expected that this injector will have high drag. To be beneficial, therefore, the increased heat release arising from its promotion of mixing must be sufficient to offset the drag penalty in any practical application of this injector. from the injector base. An extra pressure transducer was positioned 67 mm downstream from the injector base in the constant area section. The Mach 2.5 condition was obtained by using a two-dimensional supersonic diffuser in conjunction with a 304.8 mm exit 34.9 mm throat conical nozzle, as shown in Fig. 3 (b). The two angled plates that make up the diffuser are positioned such that the reflected shock waves pass outside the scramjet inlet and a Mach number of 2.5 is produced at the diffuser exit.
Injector (a) Splitter Plate Flow 25mm 4.8mm 150mm (b) Diffuser M=5.8 Shock waves M=2.5 Scramjet Inlet 87mm
F1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Scramjet Model
The experiments were performed on a laboratory model of a scramjet, shown in Figs. 2 and 3, in the T3 free-piston shock tunnel facility at the Australian National University6. Tests were conducted at two Mach numbers: M=2.5 and M=3.7. The model consists of a rectangular duct having two side windows to provide optical access with an injector situated mid-way between the floor and roof of the duct. The duct has a 25 x 52 mm cross section and is 425 mm in length. The injector is 4.8 mm thick, the upstream section forming a splitter plate that extends far enough into the flow so that shock waves generated at the leading edge and the expansion waves at the shoulders pass outside the duct. Pressure transducers were mounted on the centre line in the duct floor beginning 55 mm downstream of the injector base and every 20 mm thereafter as shown in Fig. 2 (a).
(a) Splitter Plate Injector Flow
1234567 8

3.5 deg

Side Window 180mm

304.8 mm exit conical nozzle

Figure 3: Scramjet models (a) Mach 2.5 model and (b) nozzle and diffuser set-up to produce Mach 2.5.

Flow Conditions
Each injector was subjected to three tests: noinjection, non-combustion, and combustion. The noinjection test allows the study of the wake of the injector. In the non-combustion test, the fuel jet exhausts into a co-flowing nitrogen stream so that mixing proceeds without combustion. In the combustion test, the fuel jet exhausts into a coM=3.7 Condition H o=4 (MJ/kg) Mach No. Pressure(kPa) Temperature(K) Density (kg/m3 ) Velocity (m/s) M=2.5 Condition H o=2.9 (MJ/kg) Mach No. Pressure(kPa) Temperature(K) Density (kg/m3 ) Velocity (m/s) Inlet 2 - Nozzle Conditions = 0.5 3.72 2.0 120 113 1020 160 0.44 0.17 2330 1960 Inlet 2 - Nozzle Conditions = 0.8 2.5 90 1230 0.25 1710 2.0 46 160 0.07 1960 5 - Nozzle = 0.5 1.9 71 170 0.1 1880 5 - Nozzle = 0.8 1.9 46 170 0.07 1880

25mm
9 10 11 12

4.8mm 188mm (b)

M=3.7

Side Window 180mm Scramjet Inlet Scramjet Inlet

88.9 mm exit contoured nozzle

Figure 2: Scramjet models (a) Mach 3.7 model and (b) Mach 3.7 nozzle set-up.

A transducer was also mounted in the roof directly above the injector and 35 mm upstream of its base, to measure the inlet pressure of the duct. This configuration was used for the Mach 3.7 condition. The Mach 3.7 condition was obtain by using a 88.9 mm exit 25.4 mm throat contoured nozzle shown in Fig. 2 (b). The configuration shown in Fig. 3 (a) was used for Mach 2.5 experiments. In order to prevent thermal choking7, the bottom plate was inclined at an angle of -3.5 degrees, starting at a point 87 mm downstream

Table 1. Flow conditions. flowing air stream allowing both mixing and combustion to take place. In all tests involving fuel injection, hydrogen was used as the fuel. The

2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIAA-98-0964
freestream flow conditions including the total specific enthalpy, Ho, are summarised in Table 1.

Mach 3.7 condition

Combusting flow behaviour
For each of the no-injection, non-combustion and combustion tests, floor static pressures were measured throughout the test time. The significant pressure rises observed in the combusting flows are attributed to heat release accompanying the combustion, with higher pressures indicating more complete combustion. Figure 6 shows the floor pressures recorded for the five nozzle plane base injector at = 0.5.
300

Shadowgraph system
The flows were visualised using a single-pass shadowgraph system8. The light source was a flash lamp-pumped dye laser with a 0.5 s pulse width. A schematic of the shadowgraph optical system is shown in Fig. 4.
DYE LASER FPDL SPHERICAL MIRROR f = 3.0 m CUBE BEAM SPLITTER in place for alignment only

LENS f = 40 mm 3.0 m

PRISMS

2 mm RADIAL APERTURE ALIGNMENT LASER FLAT MIRROR d = 0.24 m

250

No-Injection Non-Combustion Combustion

TEST SECTION

Pressure (kPa)

FLOW

200

150

LENS f = 2.86 m CAMERA NEUTRAL DENSITY FILTER

2.86 m

100

50
FLAT MIRROR d = 0.5 m

Figure 4: Single-pass shadowgraph system.

0 0 100 200 300 Distance from Injector Base (mm) 400

Results and Discussion

Duct f l o w
Figure 5 shows the results of a method of characteristics calculation of the complex wave patterns associated with the plane base injector wake9 together with the corresponding shadowgraph of the flow. Flow is from left to right in this and in all subsequent shadowgraph images.

Figure 6: Measured pressure profiles for no-injection, non-combustion and combustion for the five nozzle plane base injector at = 0.5. M=3.7

Recirculation Zone Recompression Shock Base Expansion Wake

The maxima and minima on the two lower plots indicate shock waves and expansion waves, respectively, interacting with the wall. It is interesting to observe that the non-combusting pressure distribution is virtually identical to the noinjection distribution except far downstream of the injector. It is also clear from the figure that the shock waves in the combusting flow intersect the wall further upstream than in the no-injection and nocombusting flows. This is due to the reduction in Mach number caused by heat release. The combusting plot shows a significant pressure rise due to heat release just a short distance (100-130 mm) downstream of the injector base. Shadowgraph images taken from the three tests are shown in Fig. 7 for the five-nozzle plane base injector at = 0.5. There are clear differences between the images of the no-injection and non-combusting flows. The differences between the non-combustion image Fig. 7 (b) and the combustion image Fig. 7 (c) are more subtle. The difference is that the jet can be easily seen across the entire image in Fig. 7 (c) but not in Fig. 7(b).

Figure 5: Shadowgraph image of wake flow and theoretical position of waves in the duct. M=3.7

The calculation accurately predicts the wave positions and shock curvature arising from the interaction of the reflected expansion fan with the recompression shock wave. Other waves shown in the shadowgraph image (top left of the image) are generated from a shock wave/boundary layer interaction at the scramjet inlet not included in the theoretical calculation.

3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIAA-98-0964
increase. This visual effect is accociated with combustion, is probably due to a non-uniformities in refractivity caused by the combustion heat release and resulting turbulent flow.

(a)

(b)

(a)

(c)

(b)

40

(mm)

80

120

(c)

Figure 7: Shadowgraph images for (a) no-injection, (b) non-combustion and (c) combustion for the five nozzle plane base injector at = 0.5. M=3.7

(d)

In comparing Figs. 6 and 7, it seems that most of the combustion takes place outside the optical viewing window.
0 40

Shown in Fig. 8 is the effect of fuel mass flow rate. The pressure plot shows no discernible difference in pressure rise with until about 150 mm downstream from the injector base. Beyond this point, the pressure rise due to heat release increases with increasing amounts of fuel flow as illustrated in the figure.

Figure 9: Shadowgraph images for (a) = 0, (b) = 0.25 (c) = 0.5, and (d) = 1.0 for the five nozzle plane base injector. M=3.7

(mm)

80

120

Influence of Injector Geometry

The pressures recorded for the = 0.5 combusting flow tests with the five-nozzle and the two-nozzle plane base injectors are presented in Figure 10. The figure shows that the combustion pressure increase in the flow with the five-nozzle injector greatly exceeds that in the flow with the two-nozzle injector. The only differences between the two flows are the initial surface area of the fuel/air interface, which will be greater for the five-nozzle injector, and the fuel jet exhaust pressure, which will be greater for the twonozzle injector. These differences cannot influence the flow chemistry; the flow temperature cannot be altered significantly anywhere in the flow, nor can there be any increase in precursor radical species. The pressure differences must therefore arise from differences in mixing efficiency between the two injector geometries. This leads immediately to the conclusion that the flow is mixing limited, as expected at the outset of this work. A corollary is that the five-nozzle injector produces faster mixing than the two-nozzle injector. Hereafter, combustion induced pressure rise will be interpreted as a measure of mixing efficiency. It is possible that the oblique shocks on the compression ramps of the SCER may alter the chemistry via the associated entropy rise but this is considered unlikely.

400 350 300

Pressure (kPa)

PHI = 0 PHI = 0.25 PHI = 0.5 PHI = 1.0

250 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 Distance from Injector Base (mm) 400

Figure 8: Measured pressure profiles for = 0, = 0.25 = 0.5, and = 1.0 for the 5 nozzle plane base injector. M=3.7

The shadowgraph images in Fig. 9 are those corresponding to the pressure traces in Fig. 8. The visible effects of the increased fuel flow include the increasing visibility of the jet in the region x < 60 mm and can be attributed to increasing quantities of the cool, unburnt hydrogen fuel, with its high refractive index, on the refractivity field in the duct. The appearance of turbulence-like flow patterns, visible at the right hand end of the field of view, becomes more pronounced and seems to occupy a greater proportion of the height of the duct as

4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIAA-98-0964

280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

No-Injection Two Nozzle Combustion Two Nozzle Combustion Five Nozzle

(a)

Pressure (kPa)

(b)

(c)
100 200 300 400 Distance from Injector Base (mm)

Figure 10: Measured pressure profiles for injection from plane base injectors with two and five nozzles, respectively, for = 0.5. M=3.7

45

(mm)

85

125

Figure 11 shows the pressure distributions for the two-nozzle plane base, castellated base and SCER injectors for = 0.5 and M = 3.7 combusting flow compared against that of the no-injection plane base flow. The plane and castellated base injectors can be seen to have very similar mixing efficiencies while the SCER can be seen to significantly enhance mixing efficiency beyond that of the plane base injector datum case.
No-Injection Plane Base 280 260 240 220 200
Pressure (kPa)

Figure 12: Shadowgraph images for injection from (a) plane base, (b) castellated and (c) SCER injectors with two nozzles, for = 0.5. M=3.7

Close inspection of Fig. 12 reveals that the fine structured, turbulence-like region, associated earlier with combusting flow, is similar in extent for the plane and castellated injector flows but extends further upstream for the SCER injector flow. This accords with the pressure distributions which show the SCER reaching a given pressure level upstream of the other injectors.
280 260 240 220 200
Pressure (kPa)

Combustion Plane Base Combustion Castellated Combustion Swept CompressionExpansion Ramp Non-Injection Plane Base Combustion Plane Base Combustion Castellated

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Distance from Injector Base (mm) 350 400

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Distance from Injector Base (mm)

Figure 11: Measured pressure profiles for injection from plane base, castellated and swept compressionexpansion ramp injectors with two nozzles, for = 0.5. M=3.7

Figure 12 shows the corresponding combusting flow shadowgraph images, which appear to show an increase in the wake-jet thickness as the injector is changed from the plane base to the SCER injector. This impression may be misleading as shadowgraph is sensitive to the second spatial derivative of refractivity and the castellated and SCER injector base flows are highly three-dimensional. Interpretation is therefore difficult.

Figure 13: Measured pressure profiles for injection from plane base and castellated injectors with five nozzles, for = 0.5. M=3.7

The comparison between the pressure distributions for the combusting flows with the five nozzle plane base and castellated injectors is shown in Fig. 13. The injectors produce virtually identical pressure profiles and higher pressures than their two nozzle counterparts as noted earlier for the plane base injector. The corresponding shadowgraph images are also similar, as may be seen from Fig. 14.

5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIAA-98-0964

(a)

(a)

(b)

(b)

40

(mm)

80

120

(c)

Figure 14: Shadowgraph images for injection from (a) plane base and (b) castellated injectors with five nozzles, for = 0.5. M=3.7
5 45 (mm) 85 125

Mach 2.5 Condition

The pressure profiles for the Mach 2.5 condition are shown in Figs. 15 and 17. Fig. 15 shows the pressure distributions for the two-nozzle plane base, castellated and SCER injectors. The first point on the graph is the pressure measured by the pressure transducer mounted on the floor of the constant area section. The lower curve is the pressures measured for no-injection and shows the floor static pressure dropping due to the increasing area of the duct. The pressure rises due to shock waves seem to be suppressed by this expansion.
No-Injection Plane Base Combustion Plane Base Combustion Castellated Combustion Swept Compression-Expansion Ramp

Figure 16: Shadowgraph images for injection from (a) plane base, (b) castellated and (c) SCER injectors with two nozzles, for = 0.8. M=2.5

plane base and castellated injectors. However, the castellated injector seems to show some performance improvement over the plane base injector beyond 200 mm of the injector base. Figure 17 shows the pressure profiles for the two five nozzle injectors at M=2.5. There appear to be some significant differences between the injectors between 150 to 200 mm downstream of the injector base and a similar trend to that shown by their two nozzle counterparts 220 mm downstream of the injector base.
160

160 140

120

No-Injection Plane Base Combustion Plane Base Combustion Castellated

140

Pressure (kPa)

100

120
80

Pressure (kPa)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

100

60

80

40 20 0

60

40

Distance from Injector Base (mm)

20

Figure 15: Measured pressure profiles for injection from plane base, castellated and SCER injectors with two nozzles, for = 0.8. M=2.5

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Distance from Injector Base (mm)

The pressure rises measured for combustion show a similar result to that obtained for the two nozzle injectors at M=3.7, as the SCER injector produces a substantially higher pressure due to combustion than either of the

Figure 17: Measured pressure profiles for injection from plane base and castellated injectors with five nozzles, for = 0.8. M=2.5

The shadowgraph images in Figs. 16 and 18 also have a similar appearance to those taken at M=3.7 with the steeper shocks here indicating the lower freestream Mach number.

6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIAA-98-0964
allowance for the uncertainties introduced by this simplification, the calculation can be used to obtain an approximate value for the percentage of injected fuel consumed as a function of distance for each injector/flow combination. As argued earlier, the mixing limited nature of the flow allows this percentage to be interpreted as a measure of the mixing efficiency of injector/flow combination.
5 45 85 125

(a)

(b)

(mm)

140

120

Pressure (kPa)

Figure 18: Shadowgraph images for injection from (a) plane base and (b) castellated injectors with five nozzles, for = 0.8. M=2.5

100

Non-Injection Plane Base Non-Injection Castellated Non-Injection Swept Compression-Expansion Ramp

80

60

One-Dimensional flow with heat addition

Quantitative data obtained in this project are limited to the duct floor pressures. In order to deduce other flow properties such as temperature, Mach number and percentage fuel burnt, from these pressure distributions and the flow boundary conditions, a onedimensional finite difference calculation was performed similar to that used by Stouffer et al.12 . The governing flow equations for this model are, Continuity :

40

20

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Distance from Injector Base (mm)

Figure 19: Measured pressure profiles for no-injection from plane base, castellated and SCER injectors with two nozzles, for = 0.8. M=2.5

uA = const.
du dp = dx dx

Momentum : u

Figure 19 shows the no-injection pressure profiles for the three injector configurations tested. These pressures are virtually identical. Thus, the measured combustion pressure profiles have a common reference point. This allows the results from the onedimensional calculation for each injector configuration to be compare directly with each other.

Energy :

dh dp dq =u + dx dx dx
% Fuel Burnt

0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15

State :

p = RT

where q is the heat released. It is assumed that the only reaction which occurs in the flow is the water formation reaction, 2 H2 + O2 2 H2 O This assumption is justified on the grounds that since the maximum calculated temperature is below 2500K (see Fig. 21), which is too low for the operation of endothermic reactions such as the NO and OH formation reactions. This model does not take into account the pressure rise due to shock waves. It assumes that the change of pressure with distance measured for the combustion case is due to heat release only. With suitable

Plane Base Castellated Swept CompressionExpanison Ramp

0.1 0.05 0 0 50 100 150 200 250

300

350

400

Distance from Injector Base (mm)

Figure 20: Percentage fuel burnt along duct for plane base, castellated and SCER with two nozzles, for = 0.8. M=2.5

Figure 20 shows the percentage fuel burnt or efficiency along the duct for the two-nozzle injector configurations at M=2.5. The SCER injector shows significantly higher efficiency throughout the duct approaching nearly double that of either the plane base or castellated injector from 120 to 200 mm downstream of the injector base. The castellated injector shows 10 -15% improvement in efficiency

7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIAA-98-0964
over the plane base injector from 220 mm downstream of the injector base. The way in which the percentage fuel varies along the duct for the castellated injector is not consistent with the notion that the effects of hypermixing injectors ought to be confined to the near-field. At the stage this cannot be explained.

Mixing Enhancement
Mixing enhancement primarily arises from the stretching of the fuel-air interface. The plane base injector achieves this via spanwise vorticity. An explanation for the unchanged level of mixing shown by the castellated injector might be found in some of the mechanisms responsible for its lower drag. The drag reduction is primarily due to the entrainment of fluid from the top of the projections into the recess region3 and this is a possible source of streamwise vorticity. The entrainment of fluid also results in a thicker wake neck region than that of the plane base injector which reduces the amount of spanwise vorticity3. This source and sink of vorticity may counteract each other. Increasing Mach number may also have an effect on the mixing properties of the castellated injector. The region of influence on the upper surface of the projection and the flow expansion angle around a blunt trailing edge decrease with increasing Mach number. Therefore the effectiveness of presence of the recess region in entraining high momentum fluid down beside the fuel-jet to enhance mixing11 will be decreased as the Mach number rises. The considerable mixing enhancement shown by the SCER is likely to be due to the generation of pairs of streamwise vortices, in the wake of each ramp, stretching the fuel-air interface3 possibly boosted by shock-vortex interaction4. It is unlikely that there is any jet-shock interaction mixing augmentation as the recompression shocks and the fuel jets are well separated in the current implementation of this injector type2.

3000

2500

Temperature (K)

2000

1500

1000

Plane Base Castellated

500

Swept Compression-Expansion Ramp

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Distance from Injector Base (mm)

Figure 21: Temperature variation along duct for plane base, castellated and SCER injectors with two nozzles, for = 0.8. M=2.5

The temperature variation shows a similar profile to that of the measure static pressure profile (Fig. 21) with temperatures reaching a maximum 2100K, 2300K, and 2600K, for the plane base, castellated and SCER respectively. The Mach number distributions are shown in Fig. 22. The freestream Mach number drops to approximately M =1.7 therefore remaining supersonic throughout the duct.

3.5

Conclusions and further work

An experimental comparison between two hypermixing injectors, at two Mach numbers has been presented using floor static pressure measurements and shadowgraph images. A onedimensional model was used to determine combustion efficiency, temperature and Mach number distributions along the combustor. The following observations were made:
400

2.5

Mach No.

1.5

Plane Base Castellated

0.5

Swept Compression-Expansion Ramp

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Distance from Injector Base (mm)

Figure 22: Mach No. variation along duct for plane base, castellated and SCER injectors with two nozzles, for = 0.8. M=2.5

(i) Combustion and attendant heat release and pressure rise occurred in flows in which hydrogen fuel was injected into an incoming air flow. (ii) Combustion induced pressure rise increased with increasing equivalence ratio, , up to = 1 which was the highest value tested. The fact that the pressure

The one-dimensional calculations for the M=3.7 condition are not presented due to dominating effect of the shock waves on the pressure profiles in the constant area duct.

8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIAA-98-0964
rise due to combustion for = 1 was not twice that of = 0.5 suggests that a plateau would be reached. (iii) A consistent interpretation of the flow was obtained from shadowgraph, pressure distributions and method of characteristics calculation of the flow field. (iv) The flows are mixing limited. Relative mixing efficiencies could therefore be deduced from the pressure distributions produced by combustion heat release. (v) For the same injector base geometry, greater mixing was obtained by increasing the number of fuel exhaust nozzles. This is one manifestation of the well known phenomenon that increasing the surface area of the fuel/air interface, increases the mixing rate. (vi) Of the injectors examined here, the SCER injector proved to have the highest mixing efficiency for all flow conditions. In the M = 3.7 flows, the mixing efficiencies of the castellated and plane base injectors were found to be very similar. In the M = 2.5 flows, the castellated injector was found to have a slightly greater mixing efficiency than the plane base injector. (vii) Application of the one-dimensional model showed that approximately 30% of injected fuel was consumed using a two nozzle plane base injector while the proportion consumed rose to 45% with the SCER injector. (viii) The one-dimensional model shows, amongst other things, that the combusting flow remained supersonic throughout the combustor. (ix) It seems that any flow effect generated by an injector geometry needs to be either very strong or very close to the fuel-air interface to have an effect on the mixing due to the short residence times of these flow effects. The shadowgraph images provide some qualitative information about the flow field, but due to the threedimensional nature of the flow field a quantitative conclusion cannot be drawn from them. Experiments are currently in progress to investigate the injector configurations further in an unconfined, noncombusting flow environment using planar laserinduced fluorescence (PLIF). PLIF can be used to image a two-dimensional slice of the flow field; from these images a three-dimensional picture of the flow field can be constructed. It is hoped that these experiments will lead to a better understanding of the mixing enhancement properties of the injectors. Further improvement to the one-dimensional model can be made, such as the inclusion of more chemical reactions, the effects of the multiply reflected inlet and recompression shocks and possibly some detailed modelling of the mixing .

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Paul Walsh for his technical expertise and Paul Tant for his technical assistance with the tunnel and scramjet. Inputs from Jodie Fox, Sean O'Byrne, Paul Danehy, Phil Palma and Joe Kurtz are gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks goes to Sean for his help with the onedimensional model flow model. This research has been financially supported by the Australian Research Council.

References
1. Davis DL, Numerical Analysis of techniques for Efficient Generation of Vorticity in Supersonic Flows 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, January 6-9, 1992. AIAA 92-0828 2. Davis DO, Hingst WR, Progress Toward Synergistic Hypermixing Nozzles AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 27th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Sacramento, California, June 24-27, 1991. AIAA 91-2264 3. Magi EC, Investigations into the flow behind Castellated Blunt Trailing Edge Aerofoils at Supersonic Speed. Ph.D.Thesis, 1990, School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University College, University of New South Wales, ADFA 4. Yang J, Kubota T, Zukoski E, An Analytical and Computational Investigation of Shock-Induced Vortical Flows 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, January 6-9, 1992. AIAA 92-0316 5. Nedungadi A, Lewis MJ, A Numerical Study of Fuel Mixing Enhancement Using Oblique Shock/Vortex Interactions AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 32nd Joint Propulsion Conference Orlando, FL, July 1996. AIAA 96-2920 6. Stalker RJ, Development of a Hypervelocity Wind Tunnel, Aeronautical Journal, p374-384, Vol. 76, 1972. 7. O'Byrne S, Doolan M, Olsen SR, AFP Houwing, Analysis of Transient Thermal Choking Processes in a Model Scramjet Engine submitted to 36th

9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AIAA-98-0964
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, January 12-15, 1998. 8. Merzkirch W, Methods of Experimental Physics vol 18A ed., RJ Emrich, (Academic, New York), 1981. 9. Saad MA, Compressible Fluid Flow, (Second Edition, Prentice Hall), 1993. 10. Ferri A, Mixing-Controlled Supersonic Combustion. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, p301-338, Vol. 5, 1973. 11. Hung C, Barth TJ, Computation of Hypersonic Flow Through a Narrow Expansion Slot 26th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, January 11-14, 1988. AIAA 88-0232 12. Stouffer S.D, Baker N.R, Capriotti D.P, Northam G.B, Effects of Compression and Expansion-Ramp Fuel Injector Configurations on Scramjet Combustion and Heat Transfer 31st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, January 11-14, 1993. AIAA 93-0609

10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics