Large Eddy Simulation of Supersonic Combustion in a Cavity-Strut Flameholder

A review of numerical simulation and modeling of combustion in scramjets

“…From Figures 13 and 14, it is seen that the numerical data was in good agreement with the velocity measurements obtained using hydroxyl tagging velocimetry in non-reacting flow. 13 From this case study results revealed multiple shear layers in the wake of the strut, providing a wider mixing region which can potentially stabilize the flame. 13 In addition to the wider mixing region, a Figure 11.…”

“…13 From this case study results revealed multiple shear layers in the wake of the strut, providing a wider mixing region which can potentially stabilize the flame. 13 In addition to the wider mixing region, a Figure 11. Wall pressure distribution, step combustor, total ' ¼ 0.…”

“…11 In conclusion, the turbulent Schmidt number yielded predicted peak pressure values that agreed within 1% of the experimental data and proved to be acceptable for two different tested equivalence ratios (0.5 and 1.0) and two different combustor configurations (step combustor and divergent combustor). 11 Other work investigating turbulence modeling is that of Ghodke et al 13 who investigated LES of supersonic combustion in a cavity-based flameholder. Non-reacting and reacting flows were analyzed for two different cavity-based flameholder configurations.…”

“…13 Figure 15 shows reacting flow computational predictions using LEM-LES and turbulent-ANN. As seen in the figure, there is good agreement between the numerical predictions and the experimental data.…”

Cavity-based flameholding for chemically-reacting supersonic flows

“…Additionally, at high fueling rates, spanwise images obtained from OH-PLIF indicated a slightly broader shear layer reaction zone when the rear wall fuel injectors were located closer to the cavity floor than the air injectors. Both numerical simulations (RANS/LES) employing reduced kinetic mechanisms [10,14,26,27,42,48,56,57,8,92,94,95] and experimental studies [63,22,45,39] where in-flow probing (IFP), mass spectrometry (MS), and/or specialized spectroscopic techniques were utilized to obtain information regarding the local distribution of temperature and species, have provided further and in some cases more detailed insight into the structure and dynamics of the reacting cavity flowfield. The general consensus from these studies is that the local flowfield is characterized by a large degree of non-uniformity in both temperature and species concentration, and the distribution of these quantities is highly sensitive to injector placement as well as changes in fueling rate.…”