Advertisement

Kerosene-fueled supersonic combustion modeling based on skeletal mechanisms

Review
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

A brief review of the recent advances in kerosene-fueled supersonic combustion modeling is present by comparing the fuels, reviewing the kinetic mechanisms, and introducing recent modeling results. The advantages and disadvantages of hydrogen and kerosene for the scramjet combustor are compared to show that kerosene is a more viable fuel option for a Mach number range of 48. However, detailed kinetic mechanisms for kerosene, which usually contain thousands of elementary reactions, must be significantly reduced for use in modeling. As of this writing, the smallest skeletal kerosene mechanism has only 19 species and 53 reversible reactions. In contrast to pioneer models based on global chemistry, the current kerosene-fueled supersonic combustion models based on reduced/skeletal chemistry are classified as second-stage. The influence of kinetic mechanisms, global equivalence ratios, inlet Mach number, geometric shape, and domain symmetry are reviewed based on high-fidelity models and available measurements. With the advances in computational technology, models with accurate descriptions of both flow and chemistry are becoming a promising, indispensable approach for the study of supersonic combustion.

Keywords

Kerosene Supersonic combustion Large eddy simulation Skeletal mechanism Scramjet 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the Training Program of the Major Research Plan of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 91641110), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 11502270), and the State Key Laboratory of High Temperature Gas Dynamics Innovative Foundation (Grant LHD2018JS01). The authors are grateful to the National Supercomputer Center in Tianjin for providing the computational resource.

References

  1. 1.
    Curran, E.T., Murthy, S.N.B.: High-Speed Flight Propulsion Systems. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, DC (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maurice, L., Edward, T., Griffiths, J.: Liquid hydrocarbon fuels for hypersonic propulsion. Scramjet propulsion 189, 757–822 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hui, X., Sung, C.J.: Laminar flame speeds of transportation-relevant hydrocarbons and jet fuels at elevated temperatures and pressures. Fuel 109, 191–200 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dagaut, P., Cathonnet, M.: The ignition, oxidation, and combustion of kerosene: a review of experimental and kinetic modeling. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 32, 48–92 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vasu, S.S., Davidson, D.F., Hanson, R.K.: Jet fuel ignition delay times: shock tube experiments over wide conditions and surrogate model predictions. Combust. Flame 152, 125–143 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fiorina, B., Vié, A., Franzelli, B., et al.: Modeling challenges in computing aeronautical combustion chamber. Aerospacelab J. 11, 1–19 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yan, Y., Liu, Y., Di, D., et al.: Simplified chemical reaction mechanism for surrogate fuel of aviation kerosene and its verification. Energy Fuels 30, 10847–10857 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kundu, K.P., Deur, J.M.: A simplified reaction mechanism for calculation of emissions in hydrocarbon (jet-a) combustion. In: AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 29th joint propulsion conference and exhibit. Monterey, CA, 28–30 June (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gueret, C., Cathonnet, M., Boettner, J.C., et al.: Experimental study and modeling of kerosene oxidation in a jet-stirred flow reactor. Symposium (International) on Combustion 23, 211–216 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulz, W.D.: Oxidation products of a surrogate JP-8 fuel. ACS Petrol. Chem. Div. Preprints 37, 383–392 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heneghan, S.P., Locklear, S.L., Geiger, D.L.I., et al.: Static tests of jet fuel thermal and oxidative stability. J. Propul. Power 9, 5–9 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Violi, A., Yan, S., Eddings, E.G., et al.: Experimental formulation and kinetic model for JP-8 surrogate mixtures. Combust. Sci. Technol. 174, 399–417 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooke, J.A., Bellucci, M., Smooke, M.D., et al.: Computational and experimental study of JP-8, a surrogate, and its components in counterflow diffusion flames. Proc. Combust. Inst. 30, 439–446 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agosta, A.: Development of a chemical surrogate for JP-8 aviation fuel using a pressurized flow reactor. [Master Thesis], Drexel University (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Humer, S., Frassoldati, A., Granata, S., et al.: Experimental and kinetic modeling study of combustion of JP-8, its surrogates and reference components in laminar nonpremixed flows. Proc. Combust. Inst. 31, 393–400 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Daniau, E., Bouchez, M., Bounaceur, R., et al.: Contribution to scramjet active cooling analysis using n-dodecane decomposition model as a generic endothermic fuel. In: 12th AIAA international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies. Norfolk, Virginia, 15–19 December (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dagaut, P., El Bakali, A., Ristori, A.: The combustion of kerosene: experimental results and kinetic modelling using 1- to 3-component surrogate model fuels. Fuel 85, 944–956 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colket, M., Edwards, T., Williams, S., et al.: Development of an experimental database and kinetic models for surrogate jet fuels. In: 45th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. Reno, Nevada, 8–11 January (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Honnet, S., Seshadri, K., Niemann, U., et al.: A surrogate fuel for kerosene. Proc. Combust. Inst. 32, 485–492 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lindstedt, R.P., Maurice, L.Q.: Detailed chemical-kinetic model for aviation fuels. J. Propul. Power 16, 187–195 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dooley, S., Won, S.H., Chaos, M., et al.: A jet fuel surrogate formulated by real fuel properties. Combust. Flame 157, 2333–2339 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dooley, S., Won, S.H., Heyne, J., et al.: The experimental evaluation of a methodology for surrogate fuel formulation to emulate gas phase combustion kinetic phenomena. Combust. Flame 159, 1444–1466 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moss, J.B., Aksit, I.M.: Modelling soot formation in a laminar diffusion flame burning a surrogate kerosene fuel. Proc. Combust. Inst. 31, 3139–3146 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Naik, C.V., Puduppakkam, K.V., Modak, A., et al.: Detailed chemical kinetic mechanism for surrogates of alternative jet fuels. Combust. Flame 158, 434–445 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mzé-Ahmed, A., Dagaut, P., Hadj-Ali, K., et al.: Oxidation of a coal-to-liquid synthetic jet fuel: experimental and chemical kinetic modeling study. Energy Fuels 26, 6070–6079 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dagaut, P., Karsenty, F., Dayma, G., et al.: Experimental and detailed kinetic model for the oxidation of a gas to liquid (gtl) jet fuel. Combust. Flame 161, 835–847 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dagaut, P., Dayma, G., Karsenty, F., et al.: The combustion of synthetic jet fuels (gas to liquid and coal to liquid) and multi-component surrogates: Experimental and modeling study. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2015: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition. Montréal, Canada, 15–19 June (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fan, X., Yu, G.: Analysis of thermophysical properties of Daqing RP-3 aviation kerosene. J. Propul. Technol. 27, 187–192 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zheng, D., Yu, W., Zhong, B.: RP-3 aviation kerosene surrogate fuel and the chemical reaction kinetic model. Acta Phys. Chim. Sin. 31, 636–642 (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dagaut, P., Reuillon, M., Boettner, J.C., et al.: Kerosene combustion at pressures up to 40 atm: Experimental study and detailed chemical kinetic modeling. Symposium (International) on Combustion 25, 919–926 (1994)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dagaut, P.: On the kinetics of hydrocarbons oxidation from natural gas to kerosene and diesel fuel. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 4, 2079–2094 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lu, T., Law, C.K.: Toward accommodating realistic fuel chemistry in large-scale computations. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 35, 192–215 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hautman, D.J., Dryer, F.L., Schug, K.P., et al.: A multiple-step overall kinetic mechanism for the oxidation of hydrocarbons. Combust. Sci. Technol. 25, 219–235 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Najjar, Y.S.H., Goodger, E.M.: Soot oxidation in gas turbines using heavy fuels. 2. Fuel. 60, 987–990 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Najjar, Y.S.H., Goodger, E.M.: Soot formation in gas turbines using heavy fuels. 1. Fuel. 60, 980–986 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Westbrook, C.K., Dryer, F.L.: Chemical kinetic modeling of hydrocarbon combustion. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 10, 1–57 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aly, S.L., Salem, H.: Prediction of premixed laminar flame characteristics of commercial kerosene fuel. Fuel 68, 1203–1209 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gueret, C., Cathonnet, M., Boettner, J.C., et al.: Experimental study and modeling of kerosene oxidation in a jet-stirred flow reactor. Symposium (International) on Combustion 23, 211–216 (1990)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang, T.S.: Thermophysics characterization of kerosene combustion. J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 15, 140–147 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Franzelli, B., Riber, E., Sanjosé, M., et al.: A two-step chemical scheme for kerosene–air premixed flames. Combust. Flame 157, 1364–1373 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Choi, J.Y.: A quasi global mechanism of kerosene combustion for propulsion applications. In: 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference and exhibit. San Diego, California, 31 July–3 August (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hou, L.Y., Niu, D.S., Pan, P.F., et al.: Effects of kerosene global reaction mechanisms on supersonic combustion. J. Propul. Technol. 34, 938–943 (2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yao, W., Wu, K., Fan, X.: Development of skeletal kerosene mechanisms and application to supersonic combustion. Energy Fuels 32, 12992–13003 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yao, W., Wang, J., Lu, Y., et al.: Skeletal mechanism generation based on DRGEPSA for Daqing RP-3 aviation kerosene and numerical validation. In: the 7th Chinese National Conference on Hypersonic Science and Technology, Beijing, 29–31 October (2014)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yao, W., Yuan, Y., Li, X., et al.: Comparative study of elliptic and round scramjet combustors fueled by RP-3. J. Propul. Power 34, 772–786 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yao, W., Lu, Y., Wu, K., et al.: Modeling analysis of an actively-cooled scramjet combustor under different kerosene/air ratios. J. Propul. Power 34, 975–991 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yao, W., Yuan, Y., Li, X., et al.: A comparative study of elliptic and round scramjet combustors by improved delayed detached eddy simulation. In: 21st AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Technologies Conference. Xiamen, China, 6–9 March (2017)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yao, W., Lu, Y., Li, X., et al.: Improved delayed detached eddy simulation of a high-ma active-cooled scramjet combustor based on skeletal kerosene mechanism. In: 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. Salt Lake City, Utah, 25–27 July (2016)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yao, W., Wang, J., Lu, Y., et al.: Full-scale detached eddy simulation of kerosene fueled scramjet combustor based on skeletal mechanism. In: 20th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. Glasgow, Scotland, 6–9 July (2015)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liu, B., He, G.Q., Qin, F., et al.: Simulation of kerosene fueled RBCC engine based on skeletal mechanism. In: 21st AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Technologies Conference, Xiamen, China, 6–9 March (2017)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Chen, D., et al.: A simplified mechanistic model of three-component surrogate fuels for RP-3 aviation kerosene. Energy Fuels 32, 9949–9960 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zeng, W., Liang, S., Li, H.-X., et al.: Chemical kinetic simulation of kerosene combustion in an individual flame tube. J. Adv. Res. 5, 357–366 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zeng, W., Liu, J.C., Chen, X.X., et al.: A new reduced reaction mechanism of a surrogate fuel for kerosene. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 91, 483–489 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Huang, W., Chen, F., Liu, H., et al.: Modeling chemical mechanism for surrogate jet fuel under scramjet operating conditions. In: 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. San Diego, California, 4–8 January (2016)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Xu, J., Guo, J., Liu, A., et al.: Construction of autoignition mechanisms for the combustion of RP-3 surrogate fuel and kinetics simulation. Acta Phys. Chim. Sin. 31, 643–652 (2015)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zettervall, N., Fureby, C., Nilsson, E.J.K.: A small skeletal kinetic mechanism for kerosene combustion. Energy Fuels 30, 9801–9813 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Strelkova, M.I., Kirillov, I.A., Potapkin, B.V., et al.: Detailed and reduced mechanisms of jet-a combustion at high temperatures. Combust. Sci. Technol. 180, 1788–1802 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Slavinskaya, N.A.: Skeletal mechanism for kerosene combustion with pah production. In: 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, Nevada, 7–10 January (2008)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Koniavitis, P., Rigopoulos, S., Jones, W.P.: Reduction of a detailed chemical mechanism for a kerosene surrogate via RCCE-CSP. Combust. Flame 194, 85–106 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yao, W., Wu, K., Lee, Y., et al.: Influence of chemical mechanisms on supersonic combustion characteristics fueled by kerosene. In: 2018 Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and Exposition. Cincinnati, Ohio, 9–11 July (2018)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Davidson, D.F., Shao, J., Parise, T., et al.: Shock tube measurements of jet and rocket fuel ignition delay times. In: 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Grapevine, Texas, 9–13 January (2017)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Niemeyer, K.E., Sung, C.J., Raju, M.P.: Skeletal mechanism generation for surrogate fuels using directed relation graph with error propagation and sensitivity analysis. Combust. Flame 157, 1760–1770 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wu, K., Yao, W., Fan, X.: Development and fidelity evaluation of a skeletal ethylene mechanism under scramjet-relevant conditions. Energy Fuels 31, 14296–14305 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yao, W., Wu, K., Fan, X.: Influences of domain symmetry on supersonic combustion modeling. J. Propul. Power 35, 451–465 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wang, Y., Yao, W., Fan, X.: Real-gas effect accounted for by the principle of extended corresponding states in modeling supersonic kerosene jet. In: 2018 Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and Exposition. Cincinnati, Ohio, 9–11 July (2018)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Li, B., Lee, Y., Yao, W., et al.: Prediction of kerosene properties at supercritical pressures by artificial neural network. In: 2018 Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and Exposition. Cincinnati, Ohio, 9–11 July (2018)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yao, W., Fan, X.: Development of zone flamelet model for scramjet combustor modeling. In: 21st AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technology Conference. Xiamen, China, 6–9 March (2017)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Yao, W., Wang, J., Fan, E., et al.: IDDES study of the flow and combustion characteristics in a RP-3 fueled round-to-elliptical shape-transition supersonic combustor. In: the 9th Chinese National Conference on Hypersonic Science and Technology, Xi’an, 18–21 October (2016)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Yao, W., Li, X., Wu, K., et al.: Detached eddy simulation of an axisymmetric scramjet combustor fueled by Daqing RP-3 aviation kerosene. In: the 8th Chinese National Conference on Hypersonic Science and Technology, Haerbing, 25–27 November (2015)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Yao, W., Zheng, L., Zhang, H.: Modeling analysis on the silica glass synthesis in a hydrogen diffusion flame. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 81, 797–803 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Fureby, C., Chapuis, M., Fedina, E., et al.: CFD analysis of the HyShot II scramjet combustor. Proc. Combust. Inst. 33, 2399–2405 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Larsson, J., Vicquelin, R., Bermejo-Moreno, I.: Large eddy simulations of the hyshot II scramjet. Annual research briefs 2011, Stanford University (2011)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Cecere, D., Ingenito, A., Bruno, C., et al.: Advances in LES of the hyshot II scramjet combustor. In: Processes and Technologies for a Sustainable Energy, Ischia, June 27–30 (2010)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Antonella, I., Claudio, B., Donato, C.: LES of the hyshot scramjet combustor. In: 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Orlando, Florida, 4–7 January (2010)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Johan, L.: Large eddy simulation of the hyshot II scramjet combustor using a supersonic flamelet model. In: 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. Atlanta, Georgia, 30 July–1 August (2012)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Romagnosi, L., Ingenito, A., Cecere, D., et al.: The role of the baroclinic term in supersonic fuel/air mixing enhancement. In: 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Orlando, Florida, 4–7 January (2011)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Cecere, D., Ingenito, A., Giacomazzi, E., et al.: Hydrogen/air supersonic combustion for future hypersonic vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36, 11969–11984 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chapuis, M., Fedina, E., Fureby, C., et al.: A computational study of the hyshot II combustor performance. Proc. Combust. Inst. 34, 2101–2109 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Cocks, P.A.T.: Large eddy simulation of supersonic combustion with application to scramjet engines. [Ph.D. thesis]. Corpus Christi College, University of Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ingenito, A., Runo, C.B.: Mixing and combustion in supersonic reactive flows. In: 44th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. Hartford, Connecticut, 21–23 July (2008)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ingenito, A., De Flora, M.G., Bruno, C.: LES modeling of scramjet combustion. In: 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, 9–12 January (2006)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    David, P., Graham, C.: Hybrid RANS/LES of a supersonic combustor. In: 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii, 18–21 August (2008)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Peterson, D.M., Candler, G.V., Drayna, T.W.: Detached eddy simulation of a generic scramjet inlet and combustor. In: 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Orlando, Florida, 5–8 January (2009)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    David, P., Erik, T., Graham, C.: Hybrid Reynolds-averaged and large-eddy simulation of scramjet fuel injection. In: 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. San Francisco, California, 11–14 April (2011)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Aksu, T., Uslu, S.: Large-eddy simulation of a dual-mode scramjet combustor using non-adiabatic flamelet modeling. In: 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Grapevine, Texas, 9–13 January (2017)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zettervall, N., Fureby, C.: A computational study of ramjet, scramjet and dual-mode ramjet combustion in combustor with a cavity flameholder. In: 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Kissimmee, Florida, 8–12 January (2018)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kim, S.H., Donde, P., Raman, V., et al.: Large eddy simulation based studies of reacting and non-reacting transverse jets in supersonic crossflow. In: 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Nashville, Tennessee, 10 January (2012)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Jung, C., Suresh, M.: Large-eddy simulation of cavity-stabilized supersonic combustion. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. Denver, Colorado, 2–5 August (2009)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Cai, Z., Wang, Z., Sun, M., et al.: Large eddy simulation of the flame propagation process in an ethylene fueled scramjet combustor in a supersonic flow. In: 21st AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Technologies Conference. Xiamen, China, 6–9 March (2017)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Chaitanya, G., Jung, C., Srikant, S., et al.: Large eddy simulation of supersonic combustion in a cavity-strut flameholder. In: 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Orlando, Florida, 4–7 January (2011)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Jung, C., Chaitanya, G., Suresh, M.: Large-eddy simulation of cavity flame-holding in a Mach 2.5 cross flow. In: 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Orlando, Florida, 4–7 January (2010)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sun, M.B., Geng, H., Liang, J.H., et al.: Mixing characteristics in a supersonic combustor with gaseous fuel injection upstream of a cavity flameholder. Flow Turbul. Combust. 82, 271–286 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Gottiparthi, K.C., Sankaran, R., Ruiz, A.M., et al.: Large eddy simulation of a supercritical fuel jet in cross flow using GPU-acceleration. In: 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. San Diego, California, 4–8 January (2016)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Gottiparthi, K.C., Sankaran, R., Oefelein, J.C.: High fidelity large eddy simulation of reacting supercritical fuel jet-in-cross-flow using GPU acceleration In: 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. Salt Lake City, UT, 25–27 July (2016)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Rajasekaran, A., Babu, V.: Numerical simulation of kerosene combustion in a dual mode supersonic combustor. In: 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. Sacramento, California, 9–12 July (2006)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Behera, R., Chakraborty, D.: Numerical simulation of combustion in kerosene fueled ramp cavity based scramjet combustor. J. Aerospace Sci. Technol. 58, 104–111 (2006)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Lacaze, G., Vane, Z., Oefelein, J.C.: Large eddy simulation of the hifire direct connect rig scramjet combustor. In: 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Grapevine, Texas, 9–13 January (2017)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Liu, Y., Dowling, A.P., Swaminathan, N., et al.: Prediction of noise source for an aeroengine combustor. In: 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. Portland, Oregon, 5–8 June (2011)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Clercq, P.L., Domenico, M.D., Rachner, M., et al.: Impact of fischer-tropsch fuels on aero-engine combustion performance. In: 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, Florida, 4–7 January (2010)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Cazalens, M., Rullaud, M., Frenillot, J.P.: Computational methodology for carbon monoxide emission for aeroengine combustor design. J. Propul. Power 24, 779–787 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Yang, J., Wu, X.Y., Wang, Z.G.: Parametric study of fuel distribution effects on a kerosene-based scramjet combustor. Int. J. Aerospace Eng. 7604279, 1–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Dharavath, M., Manna, P., Sinha, P.K., et al.: Numerical analysis of a kerosene-fueled scramjet combustor. J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. 8, 0110037 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Zhang, M., Hu, Z., He, G., et al.: Large-eddy simulation of kerosene spray combustion in a model scramjet chamber. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 224, 949–960 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kumaran, K., Behera, P.R., Babu, V.: Numerical investigation of the supersonic combustion of kerosene in a strut-based combustor. J. Propul. Power 26, 1084–1091 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zhang, M., Hu, Z., Luo, K.H., et al.: LES of kerosene spray combustion with pilot flame in a model dual mode ramjet chamber. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. Denver, Colorado, 2–5 August (2009)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Rajasekaran, A., Satishkumar, G., Babu, V.: Numerical simulation of the supersonic combustion of kerosene in a model combustor. Prog. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 9, 30–42 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rajasekaran, A., Babu, V.: Evaluation of a ramp cavity based concept supersonic combustor using CFD. Prog. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 9, 16–29 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Kumaran, K., Babu, V.: Mixing and combustion characteristics of kerosene in a model supersonic combustor. J. Propul. Power 25, 583–592 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Manna, P., Behera, R., Chakraborty, D.: Liquid-fueled strut-based scramjet combustor design: a computational fluid dynamics approach. J. Propul. Power 24, 274–281 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Yamashita, H., Shimada, M., Takeno, T.: A numerical study on flame stability at the transition point of jet diffusion flames. Proc. Combust. Inst. 26, 27–34 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hartill, W.B.: Analytical and experimental investigation of a scramjet inlet of quadriform shape. U.S. Air Force Report No. AFAPL-TR-65-74, Marquardt Corporation (1965)Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Gruber, M., Smith, S., Mathur, T.: Experimental characterization of hydrocarbon-fueled, axisymmetric, scramjet combustor flowpaths. In: 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. San Francisco, California, 11–14 April (2011)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Smith, S., Gruber, M., Steiner, R., et al.: Development and calibration of an axisymmetric direct-connect supersonic-combustion flowpath. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. Denver, Colorado, 2–5 August (2009)Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    David, P., Russell, B., Vincent, W.: Hybrid Reynolds-averaged and large-eddy simulation of mixing in an axisymmetric scramjet. In: 18th AIAA/3AF International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. Tours, France, 24–28 September (2012)Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Houshang, E., Datta, G., Faure, M.M.: Exploratory RANS and LES simulations of transient supersonic combustor flow. In: 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Orlando, Florida, 5-8 January (2009)Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Doherty, L.J., Smart, M.K., Mee, D.J.: Experimental testing of an airframe-integrated three-dimensional scramjet at Mach 10. AIAA J. 53, 3196–3207 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Suraweera, M.V., Smart, M.K.: Shock-tunnel experiments with a Mach 12 rectangular-to-elliptical shape-transition scramjet at offdesign conditions. J. Propul. Power 25, 555–564 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Smart, M.K.: Experimental testing of a hypersonic inlet with rectangular-to-elliptical shape transition. J. Propul. Power 17, 276–283 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Gollan, R., Ferlemann, P.: Investigation of rest-class hypersonic inlet designs. In: 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. San Francisco, California, 11–14 April (2011)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Yue, W., Meneveau, C., Parlange, M.B., et al.: Turbulent kinetic energy budgets in a model canopy: comparisons between LES and wind-tunnel experiments. Environ. Fluid Mech. 8, 73–95 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of High-Temperature Gas DynamicsInstitute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of ScienceBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Engineering ScienceUniversity of Chinese Academy of ScienceBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations