5th Asia-Pacific Conference on Combustion,

The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

18-20 July 2005

A Supersonic Combustion Model for Scramjet Vehicle Performance Studies

C.J. Doolan

School of Mechanical Engineering

The University of Adelaide, S.A. 5005, AUSTRALIA

Abstract The flame model uses a two-step chemical kinetics scheme

that allows a chemical induction period before a controlled
Modelling the complete chemical kinetics and flow physics of heat release by a single irreversible reaction. Mixing of the
supersonic combustion is a complex task that requires fuel and combustor air is assumed to occur over a mixing-
considerable computational resources. To develop length dependent on the convective Mach number and
performance evaluation tools for future hypersonic vehicles, momentum ratio of the fuel jet and combustor air-stream. The
accurate yet computationally efficient solution methods are mixing-length formulation was derived using information
required. In this work, a supersonic flame model is derived from fundamental studies in compressible mixing layers,
and used in a quasi-one-dimensional internal flow solver to supersonic flames and numerical supersonic mixing results.
provide simulations of experimental scramjet ground tests.
The results show that the technique is capable of modelling 2 Quasi-One-Dimensional Flow Solver
the pressure rise along a scramjet combustor in a
computationally efficient manner. The results are of sufficient A quasi-one-dimensional flow solver is used to solve the flow
accuracy for the method to be used for hypersonic vehicle within a scramjet combustor. Following the approach of
evaluation and performance studies. OBrien et al. [7], a series of ordinary differential equations
(ODEs) were derived to describe the fluid motion within the
1 Introduction scramjet duct. In this study, additional equations were added
to take into account boundary layer growth along the
combustor walls and an efficient two-step kinetics model
Supersonic combustion ramjets, or scramjets, are a form of
replaced the full multi-step chemical kinetics solver. The
reaction jet engine that allows the possibility of air-breathing,
equations solved are:
hypersonic flight. Hypersonic flight is characterised by
df f& f dm& f &
having a high flight Mach number (M > 5), thin shock layers = f = 1/
and very high viscous drag and heating loads. In order to dx U m& dx
dY f & 1 dm& f
design vehicles of practicable size and weight, high specific
impulse engines, such as scramjets, are required. It has been
= + (1 Y f )
dx U m& dx
estimated [1] that scramjets can provide 5-15 times the dA dAo 0.2145M 0.375
specific impulse of conventional rockets by burning fuel (such = Pw (0.08801M + 0.06365)
dx dx Re 0x.166
as hydrogen) in a supersonic airstream.
1 dA h C T 1 dm&
+ 1 + M 2 o + p f +
Scramjet engines have been in various stages of development dU 1 A d x h h m& dx
=
c f 2 c p (Taw Tw )
for the last 40 years [2]. However, it is only recently that this dx 1 QR& A
development has reached a stage where flight testing is + 2 M
possible. There have been a number of recent flight test h m& D h Pr 2 / 3
programs; the best known being the NASA X-43 series of d 1 dm& 1 dU 1 dA
=
tests [3] along with Australias HyShot Program [4]. dx m& dx U dx A dx
dp 1 dU 1 4c f 1 dm&
Serious attention is now turning to application of scramjet = pM 2 + +
technology to aerospace needs. The high specific impulse of dx U dx 2 D m& dx
the scramjet has naturally seen its introduction into future dT 1 dp 1 d
concepts of long range hypersonic cruisers and single stage to =T (2-1)
orbit launch systems [5]. Another application includes high
dx p dx dx
speed missile propulsion [6]. 1 U2 R
= 1 M 2 + h = C pT Cp =
U h MW ( 1)
In order to explore the feasibility of scramjets in the design
and performance modelling of future hypersonic vehicles, The solver assumes ideal gas behaviour and that a constant
computationally efficient methods of modelling combustor ratio of specific heats () exists within the duct. Combustion
performance are required. Multi-dimensional computational takes the form of releasing heat proportional to the reaction
fluid dynamics (CFD) models are accurate but consume large rate & multiplied by the heat of combustion QR. Heat is
amounts of computational resources. For performance
modelling studies, an efficient and robust solution technique is released after a chemical induction time is reached, signified
required that obtains suitably accurate results, but does not when the induction parameter (f) reaches unity. The fuel mass
fully resolve some of the higher order flow physics such as fraction is represented by Yf. The geometric area of the duct,
two-dimensional waves, mixing, chemical kinetics and Ao, is corrected by the boundary layer displacement thickness
turbulence. on the duct walls to produce the working area, A using an
Here, a new supersonic flame model is derived to provide a empirical correlation [8]. The equation for the velocity (U)
computationally efficient solution of the combustor flow-field. differential is derived by combining the momentum and
energy equations using a similar technique to OBrien et al. incompressible mixing length is proportional to the
[7]. Heat transfer is related to the skin friction coefficient (cf) momentum ratio, FU F :
through the Reynolds analogy and is dependent on the AU A
adiabatic and actual wall temperatures (Taw and Tw 1

respectively). Prandtl number, Pr, is assumed constant and Lmix , i FU F 2 (3-3)

equal to 0.72. The pressure (p) and temperature (T) equations dF AU A
were derived using the differential forms of the conservation 700
of mass and ideal gas equations. The specific heat Cp is Mc = 0.2
Mc = 0.4
related to the gas constant, R, and the molecular weight of the Mc = 0.6
600
mixture, MW. Mc = 0.8
Mc = 1.0
Mc = 1.2
The system of equations is solved using the Lawrence 500
Mc = 1.4
Livermore ODEPACK system of solving stiff ODEs [9] and
programming was performed using FORTRAN 90. In order 400

Lmix/dF
to complete the series of equations, a model to describe
mixing and combustion is required. 300

3 Supersonic Flame Model 200

The key to accurate combustor performance measurements is 100

determining the correct release of energy along the duct. In
the current model, this is performed by deriving a supersonic 0
mixing model and a two-step chemical kinetics model. 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Momentum Ratio
Together, these models are described as a supersonic flame
model. Figure 1. Non-dimensionalised mixing length versus
momentum ratio for various convective Mach numbers
Typically, mixing of fuel and air is calculated by solving the using Eq. (3-6).
Navier Stokes equations in conjunction with a turbulence
model. In order to keep the computational overhead low, the Papamachou and Roshko [11] show that the rate of growth of
problem is simplified using the concept of mixing efficiency a compressible turbulent mixing layer (d/dx) is related to the
(Eq. 3-1) that is defined as the ratio of fuel that is available for convective Mach number Mc and incompressible growth rate
combustion to the amount that was injected. A relation (di/dx) by a function dependent on Mc. It is reasonable to
specifically for mixing efficiency in scramjet combustors is assume that mixing length is inversely proportional to the
derived using results from the literature. mixing layer growth rate:
1
d
Assuming chemical equilibrium is usually not suitable for Lmix
modelling scramjet combustor flows as the assumption dx
prevents the prediction of ignition, an important parameter for Hence compressible and incompressible mixing lengths are
determining overall performance. However, solving complex, related by:
1 (3-4)
multi-step chemical kinetics is time consuming as it makes the L =L mix mix , i
set of ODEs difficult to solve. This is avoided in the present f (M c )
study by using an induction time model and an Arrhenius heat Given:
release model. f ( M c ) = 0.25 + 0.75e 3 M c
2

(3-5)
U UA
It is assumed that the fuel available for reaction can be Mc = F
determined using a mixing efficiency: aF + a A
m& f = m& fo (3-1) where aF is the speed of sound in the fuel and aA is the speed
of sound in the air. By using the proportionality constant K*,
where m & f is the mass flow rate of fuel available for reaction, the compressible mixing length is:
1
is the mixing efficiency and m& fo is the mass flow rate of fuel Lmix K * FU F
2
(3-6)
=
through the injectors. The mixing efficiency changes in value d F f (M c ) AU A
from zero at the injector exit until it reaches unity at a defined The constant K* is found by using the multi-dimensional CFD
mixing length Lmix where all the available fuel is mixed with results of Gerlinger and Brggermann [12]. In their work,
the combustor air and is ready for combustion. Driscoll et al. mixing efficiency was calculated along a hydrogen-fuelled
[10], in their work on scaling supersonic flames, derived fuel scramjet duct and compared with experimental measurements.
mixture fraction profiles along the centrelines of These results show that mixing efficiency is reasonably
incompressible jets: independent of injector nozzle exit dimensions. Using the
2 n2 2 n
U x (3-2) results from this study, the value of the constant was found to
f C = c F F be K* = 390 and mixing efficiency was found to have the
U
A A F d dF form:
where fC is the centreline fuel mixture fraction, c is a constant,
F is the fuel density, A is the air density, UF is the fuel
(
= a 1 e ( ( kx ) )
d
)
(3-7)
a = 1.06492
velocity, UA is the air velocity, is the momentum thickness
of the jet, dF is the diameter of the fuel injector exit and n = 1 k = 3.69639
for jet-like flows. Assuming x = Lmix,i (the incompressible d = 0.80586
mixing length) and n= 1, re-arranging Eq. (3-2) shows that the
 x Linj
where x= and Linj is the position along the duct
Lmix
where injection begins. Hence a simple method is available to
calculate the mixing efficiency and amount of fuel available
for reaction. Figure 1 plots the mixing length versus
momentum ratio, using Eq. (3-6). It can be seen that mixing
length increases dramatically as convective Mach number
increases, illustrating the mixing inhibition due to
compressibility in the shear layer.
The chemical kinetics are calculated in two steps. Firstly a
chemical induction time for hydrogen is calculated using [12]:
=
( + 1)( + 12 ) R T
P (3-8)
8530.6 21205
exp 35.1715 + + 7.22 1011 P 2 exp
T T
where is the equivalence ratio, R is a special gas constant
(8424.556) and P is pressure in atmospheres. This result is
used to calculate f in the quasi-one-dimensional solver.
The conversion of reactants to products is controlled by the
single step Arrhenius reaction [13]:
B
& = (1 f r )A exp (3-9)
T represents a high energy loss condition where scramjets
where fr is the reaction progress variable and A = 5.31 x 108
and B = 10000 K for hydrogen fuel.
4 Comparison with Experimental Results
The scramjet combustor consisted of a fuel injector placed
between two flat plates. The scramjet can be operated as
either a constant area duct or as a diverging duct where the top
and bottom plates were set at equal angles of 1.72 degrees.
Table 1 summarises the combustor inlet flow conditions
published by Boyce et al. [8] and used for the simulations.
The subscripts o and represent stagnation and free-stream
conditions respectively.
Parameter Value
T0, K 2105
h0 , MJ/kg 2.4
p0, kPa 1035
M 2.47
p, kPa 59
T, K 1025
u, m/s 1560
Table 1. Experimental duct entrance flow conditions [8].
Pressure was measured along the duct using an array of
pressure transducers. Fuel was injected at the centreline of the
duct through a slot dF = 1.6 mm high to provide equivalence
ratios () between 0 and 1.05 in the constant area and
diverging ducts.
For the constant area duct, Boyce et al. [8] found that
boundary layer separation occurred at an equivalence ratio of
0.29 and choking with subsonic combustion occurs at
equivalence ratios higher than 0.43. As flow separation
should not be operated, a simulation was performed for a
constant area duct experimental run with an equivalence ratio
of 0.23. The pressure measurements along the duct are
directly compared with the quasi-one-dimensional solver
results in Fig. 3. Using the quoted experimental conditions,
mixing layer properties were calculated to be Mc = 0.16,
fuel/air momentum ratio is 0.211 and Lmix/dF = 195.75 .

It can be seen that there is a good comparison between the

simulation and mean experimental results. The simulation
correctly models the mean pressure rise along the duct,
especially after a distance of 0.3 m from the injector (after
mixing has been completed). This indicates that the boundary
layer model is correctly compensating the duct area for
displacement thickness growth along the walls.
240
Model
220 Boyce et al (2000)
= 0.23
200

180
Pressure (kPa)

160

140
Figure 2. Experimental Scramjet Duct used by Boyce et
120
al. [8] and simulated using the quasi-one-dimensional
100
solver.
80

In order to test the applicability of the models described 60

above, the experiments published by Boyce et al. [8] were 40

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
simulated using the quasi-one-dimensional solver. x (m)

Experiments were performed in the T4 free-piston reflected
shock tunnel at the University of Queensland. The shock
tunnel operates by generating (via shock waves) a volume of
high temperature and pressure gas that supplies a hypersonic
nozzle for a very short period of time (~1-2 ms). In these
tests, Boyce et al. [8] configured the shock tunnel to produce a
Mach 2.5 flow upstream of a scramjet duct using a pair of
wedges (see Fig. 2, reproduced from [8]).
Figure 3. Comparison between experimental constant
area scramjet duct pressure measurements by Boyce et
al. [8] and results simulated using the quasi-one-
dimensional solver.
An additional combustion efficiency [14] (c) that imposes a
limit on the amount of fuel that can be consumed is also used
in these simulations. Following the work of Rattner et al.
[14], the combustion efficiency of supersonic flames is
strongly influenced by the presence of shock waves. While it
is commonly understood that shock waves increase mixing,
Rattner et al. [14] show that oblique shocks can cause part of
the fuel/air mixture to be deflected out of critical zones within
the flame and thereby remain unburnt. Combustion
efficiencies were shown to vary between 0.75 and 0.9 in the
presence of shock waves. The experimental results of Boyce
et al. [8] show shock waves are present within the combustor,
illustrated by the sharp rise and fall of the pressure about a
mean value. For the present work, a value of c = 0.88 was
used. It is most likely that this parameter depends on the
number and strength of shock waves within the combustor and
a high value is an indicator of good scramjet design.
Figure 4 shows a comparison between experimental results
from Boyce et al. [8] and the numerical model for a 1.72
degree diverging scramjet duct. While not resolving shock
wave behaviour, the code is able to accurately reproduce the
mean pressure distribution along the duct.
160
Model
Boyce et al (2000)
140
120
Pressure (kPa)
100
80
60
40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
x (m)
Figure 4. Comparison between experimental diverging
area scramjet duct pressure measurements by Boyce et
al. [8] and results simulated using the quasi-one-
dimensional solver.
9 Conclusions
A new model is derived that is able to predict the fuel/air
mixing length within supersonic ramjet combustors. The
model is based on a simplified formulation of a supersonic
flame. Proportionality constants for the model are derived
from numerical results in the literature. The mixing length
model is written in terms of the fuel/air momentum ratio and is
dependent on the convective Mach number.
The supersonic flame model was used in a quasi-one-
dimensional internal flow solver to simulate the experimental
scramjet combustor results of Boyce et al. [8]. Good
comparisons were obtained, with the computational model
predicting the mean pressure variation within the scramjet
duct for constant area and diverging area cases. Resolving the
mean combustor pressure distribution is essential for accurate
performance modelling of hypersonic vehicles. A combustion
efficiency [14] of c = 0.88 was used in all simulations.
While the model presented in this paper is capable of solving
scramjet mean flow-fields efficiently, many improvements can
be made. Firstly, a much better thermodynamic representation
of the working gases can be implemented. In addition, an
innovative, low cost numerical approach that would predict
ignition, combustion and nozzle flow recombination with
multi-step kinetics would be beneficial. Finally, the
application of this model to hydrocarbon fuel mixing and
combustion would aid in the development of volume limited
hypersonic vehicles such as missiles. New supersonic mixing
and combustion experimental results using hydrocarbon fuel
are required before this can occur.
10 References
[1] Kerrebrock, J.L., Some Readily Quantifiable Aspects of
Scramjet Engine Performance, Journal of Propulsion and
Power, 8(5), 1992, 1116-1122.
[2] Curran, E.T., Scramjet Engines: The First 40 Years,
Journal of Propulsion and Power, 17(6), 2001, 1138-
1148.
[3] Moses, P.L., Rausch, V.L., Nguyen, L.T. and Hill, J.R.
NASA Hypersonic Flight Demonstrators Overview,
Status and Future Plans, Acta Astronautica, 55, 2004, 619-
630.
[4] Dornheim, P. Hypersonics Push, Aviation Week and Space
Technology, 159(25), 2003, 35.
= 0.38
[5] Takashima, N. and Lewis, M. Optimization of Waverider-
Based Cruise Vehicles with Off-Design Considerations,
Journal of Aircraft, 36(1), 1999, 235-245.
[6] Billig, F. Supersonic Combustion Ramjet Missile, Journal
of Propulsion and Power, 11(6), 1995, 1139-1146.
[7] OBrien, T., Starkey, R. and Lewis, M. Quasi-One-
Dimensional High-Speed Engine Model with Finite Rate
0.7 0.8
Chemistry, Journal of Propulsion and Power, 17(6), 2001,
1366-1374.
[8] Boyce, R.R., Paull, A., Stalker, R.J., Wendt, M., Chinzei,
N. and Miyajima, H. Comparison of Supersonic
Combustion Between Impulse and Vitiation-Heated
Facilities, Journal of Propulsion and Power, 16(4), 2000,
709-717.
[9] Hindmarsh, A.C. ODEPACK, A Systematized Collection
of ODE Solvers, in Scientific Computing, R. S. Stepleman
et al.. (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983 (vol. 1 of
IMACS Transactions on Scientific Computation), 55-64.
[10] Driscoll, J.F., Huh, H., Yoon, Y. and Donbar, J.
Measured Lengths of Supersonic Hydrogen-Air Jet Flames
Compared to Subsonic Flame Lengths and Analysis,
Combustion and Flame, 107, 1996, 176-186.
[11] Papamoschou, D. and Roshko, A. The Compressible
Turbulent Shear Layer: An Experimental Study, Journal
of Fluid Mechanics, 197, 1988, 453-477.
[12] Gerlinger, P. and Bruggemann, D. Numerical
Investigation of Hydrogen Strut Injections into Supersonic
Airflows, Journal of Propulsion and Power, 16(1), 2000,
22-28.
[13] Sichel, M., Tonello, N.A. Oran, E.S. and Jones, D.A. A
Two-Step Kinetics Model for Numerical Simulation of
Explosions and Detonations in H2-O2 Mixtures, Proc. R.
Soc. Lond. A., 458, 2002, 49-82.
[14] Rattner, A. and Driscoll, J.F. Combustion Efficiencies of
Supersonic Flames, Journal of Propulsion and Power,
17(2), 2001, 301-307.