numerical simulation of reacting and non-reacting …
TRANSCRIPT
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF REACTING AND NON-REACTING FLOW IN
SOLID FUEL SCRAMJET ENGINE COMBUSTOR
RITUL. V. AMBETKAR1 & YASH PAL2
1M.Tech Scholar, School of Aeronautical Sciences, Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai, India
2Associate Professor, Schoolof Aeronautical Sciences, Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai, India
ABSTRACT
In this study,computational analysis was carried out to study the reacting flow filed of solid-fuel scramjet combustor.
Two-dimensional, axisymmetric combustion geometry was considered for the analysis. The turbulent (k-Ɛ) model
andtwo-step eddy dissipation reaction model wereused for modelling the combustion reactions. The paraffin wax was
used as a solid fuel. The non-reacting and reacting flow simulation were carried out using ANSYS FLUENT software at
inlet airflow of Mach number 2. The non-reacting flow analysis showedthe formation of expansion and shocks waves
inthe flow. The fluctuations inflow velocities wereascribed to the formation of the shock waves. Theseshocks were the
main reason for rising the pressure and temperature inside the combustor. The study of reacting flow revealed that the
shock train observed due to interaction of the flow with flame and formation of combustionby-products. The high
concentrations of combustion products at the wall also suggested that the reaction takes place in the vicinity of the wall.
KEYWORDS:SCRAMJET, CFD, SFSCRJ, Supersonic Combustion & k-ɛ Model
Received: Jun 05, 2020; Accepted: Jun 25, 2020; Published: Jul 03, 2020; Paper Id.: IJMPERDJUN2020197
1. INTRODUCTION
A scramjet combustor is the simplestand most reliable air-breathing propulsion system for supersonic flight. With
the adoption of supersonic combustion, it is the only available air-breathing propulsion system tosustained
hypersonic flight beyond Mach number 5. Asimple solid fuel scramjet engineconsists of an air intake system, an
exhaust nozzle, and a combustor in which solid fuel is stored[1]. At the intake section, the high enthalpy air enters
at supersonic speed followed by recirculation zone where it circulates near the wall. However, the flow at the centre
of combustor remains supersonic. At this section,the flame is restricted using flame holders and support self-
ignition of the solid fuel. The combustor section allows the fuel to hold with a port diameter smaller than the inlet
section, this avoids acceleration of the flow in the combustor. The final section is the divergent cone which allows
the supersonic expansion (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Solid Fuel Scramjet (SFSCRJ) Engine
Orig
ina
l Article
International Journal of Mechanical and Production
Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD)
ISSN (P): 2249–6890; ISSN (E): 2249–8001
Vol. 10, Issue 3, Jun 2020, 2095-2108
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.
2096 Ritul. V. Ambetkar & Yash Pal
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
The ramjet engine constitutes a prerequisite for the development of scramjet technology. It is worth mentioning
that a scramjet couldhypothetically work both as a combined ramjet/scramjet engine at the same time [2]. To demonstrate
fully supersonic combustion,a scramjet engine is predictable to achievea speed of about Mach 4-5.
A scramjet has no moving parts or only a few which causes the engine itself to have relatively low production
costs. A difference between the hypersonic air-breathing engines and rocket engines is that the former manages to avoid
the need to carry an oxidizer for fuel combustion. Elimination of oxidizer to carry on board, the vehicle would be lighter
and eventually capable of carrying more payload. Unfortunately, there are also a variety of disadvantages. A scramjet
cannot produce thrust unless first accelerated to higher velocities.It could though, as earlier suggested, operate as a ramjet
at a lower speed. Besides, the suspension of these engines requires various structures, as well as all required control
systems[3]. All the secondary equipment required to carry the vehicle to speeds suited for scramjet operation makes the
entire craft heavy.
As with a rocket that travels almost vertically through the atmosphere on its way to orbit, a scramjet will take a
flatter trajectory[4].Since the thrust-to-weight ratio of a scramjet engine is small compared to conventional rockets, it takes
more time for the scramjet to accelerate. A very low trajectory ensures the aircraft remains in the atmosphere at hypersonic
speeds for a comparatively long period. Consequently, a scramjet-propelled vehicle faces the major problems of heat
resistance not just at re-entry but in its orbit trajectory. A few of the biggest process of designing a scramjet engine relates
to combustion process[5]. Although many scramjet combustors can only combust fractions of the fuel supplied and
produce a small amount of useful heat. Therefore, an important challenge in scramjet design is the enhancement of the
combustion process. The purpose of this work is to gain more understanding of the intricate reacting flow occurring in the
combustion chamber. It can be concluded altogether that enormous development work continues before scramjets are
qualified for implementation in space application. Methodology
A model of turbulence which is very successful and widely used is the so-called k-ɛ model.It is a two-equation
model which means two additional governing equation are included to define the turbulent flow characteristics[6]. This
allows the model to take into account certain effects, such as convection and turbulent diffusion of energy. The transported
variables are the turbulent kinetic energy, k and its dissipation per unit time.The equations for k and ɛ are as follows:
𝜕(𝜌𝑘)
𝜕𝑡+ ∇ ∙ (𝜌𝑢𝑘) = −
2
3𝜌𝑘∇. 𝑢 + 𝜎⊗ ∇𝑢 + ∇. [(
𝜇
𝑝𝑟𝑘
)∇𝑘] − 𝜌𝜀 (1)
and
𝜕(𝜌𝜀)
𝜕𝑡+ ∇. (𝜌𝑢𝜀) = −(
2
3𝑐𝜀1 − 𝑐𝜀3)𝜌𝜀∇. 𝑢 + ∇. [(
𝜇
𝑝𝑟𝑐)∇𝜀] +
𝜀
𝑘[𝑐𝜀1𝜎⊗∇𝑢 − 𝑐𝑐2𝜌𝜀] (2)
These are the standard k-ε equations with some extra terms. The quantities, 𝑐𝜀1,𝑐𝜀2,𝑐𝜀3 , 𝑝𝑟𝑘 and 𝑝𝑟𝑐 are
experimentally determined constants[7].
The Eddy Dissipation Model (EDM) given by Magnussen and Hjertager is closely related to the Eddy Breakup
Model (EBU) of Spalding [8]. It assumed that diffusion flames carry fuel and oxidizer through separate eddies. There are
also rapid chemical reactions during which the fuel and the oxidizer undergo mixing at a molecular scale to perform the
combustion reaction.Hence, the speed at which reactions occur depends on the degree at which turbulent eddies containing
fuel and oxidizer are mixed assumingthe rapid chemical reaction is restricted in the EDM.
Numerical Simulation of Reacting and Non-Reacting Flow in Solid Fuel Scramjet Engine Combustor 2097
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]
2. GEOMETRY
The geometry is based on Biao et al. (2013), experiments[9]. The combustor geometry is presented in Figure 2. The
SFSCRJ model framework includes an isolator and a combustor. In front of the combustor, an isolator is present which has
a constant area duct designed to hold the pre-combustion shock wave and to avoid contacts between the flow at the inlet
and the combustor. This combustion chamber comprises of a flame-holding area near the downstream end of the area with
a forward slop, a uniform cylindrical cross-sectional area and, along wildly divergent section to sustain supersonic flow
without the formation of any shocks.
Figure 2: Combustor Geometry
3. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
All the simulations are carried out using ANSYS FLUENT. The Navier-Stokes equations and multi-species model are the
governing equations used in this analysis. The k-ɛ and shear-stress transport (SST)turbulence modelwas used.
The wall has been fixed as an adiabatic wall without any slip boundary condition. The oxygen and nitrogen are
supplied through air inlet with 0.211 and 0.789 mass fraction ratios, respectively. The pressure at the outlet segment and
other flow quantities are extrapolated from the internal domain. Table 1 shows thedetailed inlet boundary conditions. The
convergence of the solution is tracked and measured by different parameters of the residual flow properties, mass
conservation of the computational domain, and changes in the profile of the static pressures.
Table 1: Boundary Conditions for the Combustor Inlet
Property Units
Inlet Pressure 10 atm
Inlet Temperature 1200k
Inlet Mach No. 2
4. GRID INDEPENDENT STUDY
Grid refining was carried out using three different types of mesh. The first is a coarse mesh with30,000 cells, whilst the
medium and fine mesh each were considered with60,000 and100,000 elements, respectively. The mesh size andnumber of
elements of the modelasshown in Table.2. The flight Mach 2 was considered as intake conditions for grid refining. Results
show a small difference between the medium and the fine grid solutions.Figure. 4 revealed that the further refinement of
the grid is not necessary since it would not make a significantdifference in the solutions. A medium grid appears to be
appropriate amongthe three grids being compared and will be used in the rest of this analysis.
Table 2: Meshing Details of Combustor Geometry
Type of Mesh Mesh Sizing(mm) No. of Elements
Coarse 0.25 30,000
Medium 0.2 60,000
Fine 0.15 1,00,000
2098 Ritul. V. Ambetkar & Yash Pal
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3: Mesh (a) Coarse, (b) Medium, (c) Fine
Numerical Simulation of Reacting and Non-Reacting Flow in Solid Fuel Scramjet Engine Combustor 2099
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]
Figure 4: Results of Static Pressure Distribution Along Wall
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1.Non-Reacting Flow
5.1.1Static pressure Contours for Different Grids
The static pressure contours are presented in Figure. 5. In all the conditions, due to the convergent nozzle, a substantial
increase in static pressure was observed inside the flame holding zone. The high pressure perpetuates upstream, resulting in
pre-combustion shocks being formed in the isolator. The fluctuations and turbulence spread upstream through a fully
subsonic field andled to a constant propagation of static pressure inside the flame retaining area.
(a)
2100 Ritul. V. Ambetkar & Yash Pal
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
(b)
(c)
Figure 5: Static Pressure Contour for Non-reacting flow(a) Coarse (b) Medium (c)Fine
5.2.Mach Number and Temperature Contours for Different Grids.
The non-reacting flow field was determined by setting a solid fuel asa wall boundary.Figure. 6shows the cold flow field of
combustor geometry without adding fuel or its combustion. From Mach number contours, it canbe observed that at step
corner the inflow air was expanded, and the number of Mach raised from 1.3 to 2.5. However, the velocity is quite low,
and thus the static temperature inside the recirculation area of the combustor is comparatively high, at about 1150 K
(Figure. 8). The high temperature suffices for the solid grain to ignite. The Mach number in the cylindrical section was
found to be 2.4. Whereas, in the divergent zone, the flow is largely expanded withhigh velocities imparted by combustion
products exiting at up to Mach 2.85.
Numerical Simulation of Reacting and Non-Reacting Flow in Solid Fuel Scramjet Engine Combustor 2101
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 6: Mach Number contour For Non-reacting flow(a) Coarse (b) Medium (c)Fine
2102 Ritul. V. Ambetkar & Yash Pal
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Figure 7: Mach Number at Axis for Different Grids
In Figure. 7,it can be observed that the grid size has no significant effect on Mach number and at the axis of
combustorthere is no direct interaction of the flow with the wall except the formation of shocks.
(a)
(b)
Numerical Simulation of Reacting and Non-Reacting Flow in Solid Fuel Scramjet Engine Combustor 2103
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]
(c)
Figure 8: Temperature contour of combustor(a) Coarse (b) Medium (c)Fine
6. REACTING FLOW
In the reacting flow analysis, the total heat flux was calculated from the radiative and convective heat transfer, whereas the
conduction heatexchange within the grain wasneglected. While simulating reacting flow, pyrolysis of the solid paraffin is
expected to produceC3H8as the main gaseous product. The C3H8 combustion process is modelled witha simple two-step
reaction mechanism which is given by:
C3H8 + 3.5O2 → 3CO + 4H2O (3)
CO + 0.5O2 → CO2 (4)
The EDM combustion model was used tosimulate the reacting flow. It was assumed that the reaction rates
werebeing regulated by the turbulence, therefore, complex Arrhenius chemical kinetic equation was eliminated in this
method. The wall wasconsideredas an adiabatic wall without any slip. The inlet boundary condition was set as a pressure
inlet condition.
The air comprises of a blend of nitrogen and oxygen with 0.789 and 0.211 mass fractions, respectively were
supplied at the inlet. The inflow boundary conditions werekept the same as in case of non-reacting flow. The mass flow of
fuel evaporating from a solid surface was taken as 0.0197 kg/s.
6.1.Static Pressure Contour for Reacting Flow
The static pressure wasfound to increase inside the flame holding area which was ascribed tothe heat liberated due to
combustion of solid-fuel. High-pressure propagate in theupstream direction, resulting in the formation of pre-combustion
shock inside of the isolator (Figure 9). The fluctuation in chamber pressurecan perpetuate upstream through a completely
subsonic region, leading to a constant distribution of the static pressure in the flame holding area. In the case of reacting
flow, the pressure was significantly increased due to the combustion reaction of fuel and oxygen species, when compared
to the non-reacting case (Figure. 10).
2104 Ritul. V. Ambetkar & Yash Pal
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Figure 9: Static Pressure Contour for Reacting flow
Figure 10: Static Pressure distribution along with the wall comparison
between reacting and non-reacting Flow
6.2.Mach Number & Temperature Contours for Reacting Flow
Figure. 11 presents Mach number distribution of the airflow for the current reacting condition. When comparing the case
with the non-reacting flow (Figure 6b), a significant change in the velocity distribution wasobserved. The Mach number
increased from 2 to 3 in the non-reacting case, nearly vanishes in reacting flow analysis, leading in a peak Mach number
value of 2.1. In the non-reacting case, broad areas of supersonic flow werereduced to subsonic velocities due tothe release
of heat from a combustion reaction. When combustion occurs, a mixture of supersonic (near the centre) and subsonic (at
the wall) stream is established near combustor exit, substituting the non-reacting supersonic flow.
Numerical Simulation of Reacting and Non-Reacting Flow in Solid Fuel Scramjet Engine Combustor 2105
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]
.
Figure 11: Mach Number Contour for Reacting Flow
The temperature contour of the reacting flow is shown in Figure. 12. The results of the computation analysis
revealed that the sustained combustion for inlet and geometry under investigation may exist within the combustor. Flame
diffusion was observed where the temperature is 2630 K. Thisprovides a considerable amount of extra heat energy inside
of the chamber. The temperature at the axis is still low, whereas high temperatures arescattered alongside the solid-fuel
boundary. Thisresult shows that the combustion was taking place near the combustor wall.
Figure 12: Temperature Contour for Reacting Flow
6.3.Mass Fraction
Figure. 13 and Figure. 14 shows the C5H8 and CO2 mass fractions, respectively. The C5H8 maintains high mass fraction in
the recirculation zone as compared to other zones. Non-reacting fuel having an average mass fraction of 0.045. Figure
14displayed that the CO2 mass fraction spikes at 0.2 close to the exit of the combustion chamber where the most violent
reaction is observed. The CO2 mass fraction distribution shows that the combustion happens again near the solid fuel wall.
A clear decrease of reactants i.e. C5H8 and O2 can be observed in Figure. 13 and Figure. 15, respectively, until
theexit ofthe combustor and at the nozzle end, a rise in the concentration of combustion products such asCO2 and H2O can
be seen inFigure16.
2106 Ritul. V. Ambetkar & Yash Pal
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Figure 13: C3H8 Mass Fraction Contours
Figure 14: CO2 Mass Fraction Contours
Figure 15: O2 Mass Fraction Contours
Numerical Simulation of Reacting and Non-Reacting Flow in Solid Fuel Scramjet Engine Combustor 2107
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]
Figure 16: H2O Mass Fraction Contours
The oxygen mass fraction drops from peak reachingin the centreline to nearly zero after the flame. The reduction
in the recirculation region wasquite steep and become more modest at the downstream. Also, the fuel vapours mass
fraction slowly reduced from the walls towards the flames. At the exit, there wasstill a small amount of unburned fuel
vapours indicating that fuel gasses are not completely burnt. The operational parameters of the close stochiometric fuel/air
ratio, relatively small amount of the CO mass fraction wasobserved (peak value of 0.009), arising due to high CO
conversion rate into CO2.
Figure 17: Mass fraction Distribution along the wall
7.CONCLUSIONS
Computational analysis of the solid-fuel scramjet combustor operating at a velocity of Mach 2 showed that the flowwas
supersonic throughout the combustor. The multiple expansion and compression waves wereformed inside the combustion
chamber under supersonic conditions, triggering fluctuation of static pressure along the direction of the axis.
2108 Ritul. V. Ambetkar & Yash Pal
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
When comparing the distribution of flow Mach number fornon-reacting and reacting flow, a substantial change in
the velocity contourswere observed. In non-reacting flow, the inlet shock which was resulted whenthe Mach number
increased from 2 to a maximum value of 2.84, nearly vanishes in reacting flow. The supersonic flow velocity in non-
reacting scenario become subsonic due to increased heat generated from the combustion reaction. When combustion
occurs, a combined supersonic flow (at centre) and subsonic flow (near the circumference) is established close to
combustor outlet, substituting entire non-reacting supersonic stream.
REFERENCES
1. L. Gong, X. Chen, O. Musa, Y. Su, and C. Zhou, “Combustion Characteristics of the Solid-Fuel Ramjet with Star Solid Fuel,”
J. Aerosp. Eng., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1–17, 2018.
2. M. J. Nusca, S. R. Chakravarthy, and U. C. Goldberg, “Computational fluid dynamics capability for the solid-fuel ramjet
projectile,” J. Propuls. Power, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 256–262, 2008.
3. Kanth, Ujjwal, et al. "Comparison of wall temperatures on scramjet inlets at hypersonic velocities." International Journal of
Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD), ISSN (P): 2249-6890; ISSN (E): 2249-
8001Vol 8: 341-350.
4. W. J. Angus, “An Investigation Into the Performance Characteristics of a Solid Fuel Scram Jet Propulsion Device,” 1991.
5. S. A. Rashkovskiy, S. E. Yakush, and A. A. Baranov, “Numerical simulation of solid - fuel ramjet combustor with a flame
holder,” in 7th European Conference For Aeronautics And Space Sciences (EUCASS) Numerical, 2015.
6. M. Sippel et al., “Advanced simulations of reusable hypersonic rocket-powered stages,” in 21st AIAA International Space
Planes and Hypersonics Technologies Conference, Hypersonics 2017, 2017.
7. Debnath, Anupam, Bidesh Roy, And Abhijit Sinha."Assessment Of Rng K-Ε, Sst K-Ω And Reynolds Stress Models For
Numerical Simulation Of Dlr Scramjet Engine."International Journal of Mechanical and) Production Engineering Research
and Development (IJMPERD 9. 4, Aug 2019, 1157-1166
8. J. D. Anderson, Hypersonic and High-Temperature Gas Dynamics, Third Edition. Washington, DC: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2006.
9. M. Bösenhofer, E. M. Wartha, C. Jordan, and M. Harasek, “The eddy dissipation concept-analysis of different fine structure
treatments for classical combustion,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1–21, 2018.
10. Santhanam, G., Et Al. "Cfd Analysis Of The Effect Of Mach Number On Scramjet Combustion."International Journal Of
Mechanical And Production Engineering Research And Development (Ijmperd) 9.4, Aug 2019, 393-402
11. S. May, S. Karl, and O. Božić, “Development of an Eddy Dissipation Model for the use in Numerical Hybrid Rocket Engine
Combustion Simulation,” 7th Eur. Conf. Aeronaut. Sp. Sci., vol. 27, no. July, pp. 6–7, 2017.
12. L. Biao, Z. Wei, and H. Chi, “Numerical Analysis of Solid Fuel Scramjet Operating at Mach 4 to 6,” in Joint Propulsion
Conferences, 2013, pp. 1–9.
13. Sushma, L., M. Indira Rani, And M. Madhavi. "Computational Study Of Oblique Shock Induced Detonation Wave Stabilization
By Deflection Of Wedge Surface."International Journal Of Mechanical And Production Engineering Research And
Development (Ijmperd) 9. 5, Oct 2019, 699–706