Enhancing mixing features in supersonic flow through geometric correction of the cavity depth relative to the height of the combustion chamber


The conventional method for cavity analysis is solving two-dimensional equations. The two-dimensional implicit and density-based Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes equations and the two-equation standard kε turbulence model have been employed to numerically simulate the cold flow field in a single-cavity flame-holding configuration of a supersonic combustor. The cross section of the combustor is assumed to be rectangular. The supersonic inlet is supposed for the steady and unsteady flow conditions along with normal directions to the inlet. For the validation purpose, the numerical results are compared with those of the experimental data available in the current literature. It is quite well-known that the cavity in supersonic combustors helps to separate the fuel from the wall configuration while improving the mixing process in supersonic flows. However, the selection of the most efficient depth for the cavity is crucial in obtaining optimum conditions. In the present research work, the role of the cavity length-to-height (L/D) ratio, the channel height-to-cavity height (H/D) ratio and Mach number are studied numerically. The obtained results indicate that the wall static pressure profiles of validation case predicted by the numerical approaches are well in agreement with those of the experimental data. Also, H/D = 2 was found to be the best choice for the combustion chamber height relative to the cavity depth. The designed geometry is modeled in a commercial software using two-dimensional density-based energy equations while the turbulent characteristics are modeled using standard k-ε turbulence model.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24



Downstream step height


Upstream step height


Turbulent kinetic energy


Height of combustor


Combustor height-to-cavity depth ratio


Cavity length-to-depth ratio


Static pressure


Non-dimensional distance comprises, the distance upstream of the cavity, forward face from separation corner, the cavity floor and the cavity rear face


  1. 1.

    Li J, Zhang L, Choi J, Yang V, Lin K (2014) Ignition transients in a scramjet engine with air throttling, part 1: nonreacting flow. J Propuls Power 30(2):438–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Huang W, Wang Z, Yan L, Liu W (2012) Numerical validation and parametric investigation on the cold flow field of a typical cavity-based scramjet combustor. Acta Astrnautica 80(1):132–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Huang W, Liu J, Yan L, Jin L (2013) Multiobjective design optimization of the performance for the cavity flameholder in supersonic flows. Aerosp Sci Technol 30:246–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gao P, Chang X, Gao S, Zhu J (2012) the influence of supersonic combustion when the cavity parameters changed on the chamber wall. Adv Mater Res 468:2620–2623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sridhar V, Gai SL, Kleine H (2012) A numerical investigation of supersonic cavity flow at Mach 2. In: 18th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Launceston, Australia, 3–7 December 2012.

  6. 6.

    Zhang J, Morishita E, Okunuki T, Itoh H (2005) experimental investigation on the mechanism of flow type changes in supersonic cavity flows. Trans Jpn Soc Aeron Space Sci 45(149):170–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kizhakkedathu J, Nithin N, Dhinesh S, Irfan A, Murugan DT (2014) Performance analysis of double cavity based scramjet combustion at mach 2 using CFD. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 4(3):110–119

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dharavath M, Manna P, Chakrabort D (2014) Numerical Investigation of Hydrogen-fuelled Scramjet combustor with cavity Flame Holder. Def Sci J 64(5):417–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ben-Yakar A, Hanson R (2001) Cavity flame-holders for ignition and flame stabilization in scramjets: an overview. J Propuls Power 17(4):869–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gruber M, Baurle R, Hsu K, Mathur T (2001) Fundamental studies of cavity-based flame- holder concepts for supersonic combustors. J Propuls Power 17(1):146–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Yu G, Li J, Zhang X, Chen L, Han B, Sung C (2002) Experimental investigation on flame-holding mechanism and combustion performance in hydrogen fuelled supersonic combustor. Combust Sci Technol 174:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kim K, Baek S, Han C (2004) Numerical study on supersonic combustion with cavity-based fuel injection. Int J Heat Mass Transf 47:271–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Huang W, Luo S, Liu J, Wang Z (2010) Effect of cavity flame holder configuration on combustion flow field performance of integrated hypersonic vehicle. Sci China Technol Sci 53:2725–2733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Huang W, Wang Z, Zhen-guo, Pourkashanian M, Ma L, Ingham DB, Luo S, Liu J (2010) Hydrogen fuelled scramjet combustor—the impact of fuel injection. In: Fuel injection. IntechOpen, pp 167–182

  15. 15.

    Luo S, Huang W, Liu J, Wang Z (2011) Drag force investigation of cavities with different geometric configurations in supersonic flow. Sci China Technol Sci 54:1345–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Huang W, Pourkashanian M, Ma L, Ingham D, Luo S, Wang Z (2011) Effect of geometric parameters on the drag of the cavity flameholder based on the variance analysis method. Aerosp Sci Technol 21:24–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Pandey K, Kalita P, Barman K, Rajkhowa A, Saikia S (2011) CFD analysis of wall injection with large sized cavity based scramjet combustion at mach 2. Int J Eng Technol 3(2):122–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Xing F, Zhao M, Zhang S (2012) Simulations of a cavity based two-dimensional scramjet model. In: 18th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference. Launceston, Australia

  19. 19.

    Zhang D, Wang Q (2012) Numerical simulation of supersonic combustor with innovative cavity. Procedia Eng 31:708–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Pandey K (2012) CFD analysis of cavity based combustion of hydrogen at mach number 1.4. Curr Trends Technol Sci 1(3):126–133

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yanhui Z, Jianhan L, Yuxin Z (2016) Non-reacting flow visualization of supersonic combustor based on cavity and cavity–strut flameholder. Acta Astronaut 121:282–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Suppandipillai J, Assis S, Kandasamy J (2016) Experimental study on the characteristics of axisymmetric cavity actuated supersonic flow. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 231

  23. 23.

    Suppandipillai J, Assis S, Kandasamy J (2016) Effect of axisymmetric aft wall angle cavity in supersonic flow field. Int J Turbo Jet-Engines 35(1):29–34

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Khan MF, Yadav R, Quadri Z, Anwar S (2017) Numerical study of the cavity geometry on supersonic combustion with transverse fuel injection. In: Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, pp. 1509–1518

  25. 25.

    Etheridge S, Lee J, Carter C, Hagenmaier M, Milligan R (2017) Effect of flow distortion on fuel/air mixing and combustion in an upstream-fueled cavity flameholder for a supersonic combustor. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 88:461–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Liu W, Zhu L, Qi Y, Ge J, Luo F, Zou H, Wei M, Jen T (2017) Effects of injection pressure variation on mixing in a cold supersonic combustor with kerosene fuel. Acta Astronaut 139:67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Shaohua Z, Xu X, Yang Q (2018) Application of the vortex effects induced by the trailing wedge to improve the mixing and combustion in the dual- strut scramjet. Appl Therm Eng 140:604–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sathiyamoorthy K, Danish T, Srinivas J, Pulumathi M (2018) Experimental investigation of supersonic combustion in a strut-cavity based combustor. Acta Astronaut 148:285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Yang W, Fu ,Ma X, Xing R (2018) Numerical study on configuration of scramjet combustor. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 408

  30. 30.

    Cai Z, Sun M, Wang Z, Bai X (2018) Effect of cavity geometry on fuel transport and mixing processes inascramjet combustor. Aerosp Sci Technol 80:309–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cai Z, Zhu J, Sun M, Wang Z (2018) Effect of cavity fueling schemes on the laser-induced plasma ignition process in a scramjet combustor. Aerosp Sci Technol 78:197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Lakka S, Randive P, Pandey K (2019) Numerical investigation on mixing behavior of fuels inreacting and non-reacting flow condition of a cavity-strut based scramjet combustor. Int J Hydrog Energy 44:16718–16734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Zhao G, Sun M, Wu J, Cui X, Wang H (2019) Investigation of flame flashback phenomenon in a supersonic crossflow with ethylene injection upstream of cavity flameholder. Aerosp Sci Technol 87:190–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Wang Y, Wang Z, Sun M, Wang H, Cai Z (2018) Effects of fueling distance on combustion stabilization modes in a cavity- based scramjet combustor. Acta Astronaut 155:23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Huang W, Wang Z, Pourkashanian M, Ma L, Ingham D, Luo S, Lei J, Liu J (2011) Numerical investigation on the shock wave transition in a three- dimensional scramjet isolator. Acta Astronaut 68:1669–1675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Huang W, Ma L, Wang Z, Pourkashanian M, Ingham D, Luo S, Lei J (2011) A parametric study on the aerodynamic characteristics of a hypersonic wave rider vehicle. Acta Astronaut 69:135–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Launder B, Spalding DB (1974) The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 3(2):456–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Zingg D, Godin P (2009) A perspective on turbulence models for aerodynamic flows. Int J Comput Fluid Dyn 23:327–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kim J, Kim H, Setoguchi T, Matsuo S (2008) Computational study on the critical nozzle flow of high-pressure hydrogen gas. J Propuls Power 24:715–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Huang W, Li M, Ding F, Liu J (2016) Supersonic mixing augmentation mechanism induced by a wall-mounted cavity configuration. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A Appl Phys Eng 17(1):45–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Pudsey A, Boyce R (2010) Numerical investigation of transverse jets through multiport injector arrays in supersonic crossflow. J Propuls Power 26(6):225–1236

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Agha Seyed Mirzabozorg.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Technical Editor: André Cavalieri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dashti Rahmat Abadi, V., Agha Seyed Mirzabozorg, M. & Kheradmand, S. Enhancing mixing features in supersonic flow through geometric correction of the cavity depth relative to the height of the combustion chamber. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 43, 129 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-02832-w

Download citation


  • Supersonic combustion
  • Cavity
  • Non-react
  • Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)