Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T22:41:29.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Coarse-Graining Supersonic Combustion

from Part II - Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2025

Fernando F. Grinstein
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Filipe S. Pereira
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Massimo Germano
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

With high-speed turbulent combustion applications, we here mean airbreathing engine systems capable of powering aircraft at supersonic and low hypersonic flight speeds between 3 < Ma < 8. Such aircraft are most likely to be designed differently compared to today’s aircraft, being centered around a common engine duct embracing different engine systems activated at different flight speeds. For takeoff and landing, conventional turbojet engines will likely be used, whereas for cruise conditions, a dual-mode ramjet engine, capable of transi-tioning between pure ramjet and scramjet modes is preferred. Such engines do not yet exist, but experimental and computational research is currently generating data and information, paving the way toward further understanding of the aerothermodynamics. This will generate the basis for more advanced experiments that, together with high-fidelity simulations, can lead toward the realization of hypersonic flight vehicles. Here, coarse-grained reacting large eddy simulation and hybrid Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes or LES, together with small comprehensive reaction mechanisms, conjugate heat transfer, and thermal radiation modeling, play an important role. In this chapter, the necessary modeling steps and methods, as well as chemical reaction mechanisms, are scrutinized, and results from a few selected cases are presented to illustrate the key physical processes as well as the accuracy of present LES-based prediction methods and the remaining challenges.

Type
Chapter
Information
Coarse Graining Turbulence
Modeling and Data-Driven Approaches and their Applications
, pp. 455 - 493
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, N. A., and Shariff, K. 1996. A High-Resolution Hybrid Compact-ENO Scheme for Shock-Turbulence Interaction Problems. J. Comp. Phys., 127, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alekseev, V. A., Christensen, M., and Konnov, A. A. 2015. The Effect of Temperature on the Adiabatic Burning Velocities of Diluted Hydrogen Flames: A Kinetic Study Using an Updated Mechanism. Comb. Flame, 162, 1884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreadis, D. 2004. Scramjet Engines Enabling the Seamless Integration of Air and Space Operations. Industrial Physicist, 10, 24.Google Scholar
Balland, S., and Vincent-Randonnier, A. 2015. Numerical Study of the Hydrogen/Air Combustion with CEDRE on LAERTE Dual Mode Ramjet Combustion Experiment. In Proc. 20th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. doi:10.2514/6.2015-3629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardina, J., Ferziger, J. H., and Reynolds, W. C. 1992. Improved Turbulence Models Based on Large Eddy Simulation of Homogeneous, Incompressible, Turbulent Flows. Technical Report TF-19, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Batchelor, G. K., and Townsend, A. A. 1949. The Nature of Turbulent Motion at Large Wave-numbers. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, 199, 238.Google Scholar
Baurle, R. A., and Girimaji, S. S. 2003. Assumed PDF Turbulence–Chemistry Closure with Temperature Composition Correlations. Comb. Flame, 134, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermejo-Moreno, I., Larsson, J., Bodart, J., and Vicquelin, R. 2013. Wall-Modeled Large-Eddy Simulations of the HIFiRE-2 Scramjet. Center for Turbulence Research Annual Research Briefs, 3.Google Scholar
Bissinger, N. C., Koschel, W., and Sacher, P. W. Walther, R. 2001. Scramjet Investigations within the Germain Hypersonics Technology Program. Page 119 of: Scramjet Propulsion, Curran, E. T., and Murthy, S. N. B. (eds). AIAA Prog. in Astronautics and Aeronautics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boris, J. P. 2013. Flux-Corrected Transport looks at Forty. Comp. Fluids, 84, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, R. R. Sullivan, G., and Paull, A. 2003. The HyShot Scramjet Flight Experiment – Flight Data and CFD Calculations Compared. In Proc. 12th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies. doi:10.2514/6.2003-7029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branley, N., and Jones, W. P. 2001. Large Eddy Simulation of a Turbulent Non-Premixed Flame. Comb. Flame, 127, 1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, C., Taohong, Y., and Majie, Z. 2015. Large Eddy Simulation of Hydrogen/air Scramjet Combustion using Tabulated Thermo-Chemistry Approach. Chin. J. Aeronautics, 28, 1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapuis, M., Fedina, E. Fureby, C., Hannemann, K., Karl, S., and Martinez Schramm, J. 2012. A Computational Study of the HyShot II Combustor Performance. Proc. Comb. Inst., 34, 2101.Google Scholar
Chinzei, N., Mitani, T., and Yatsuyanagi, N. 2001. Scramjet Engine Research at the National Aerospace Laboratory in Japan. Page 1159 of: Scramjet Propulsion, Curran, E. T., and Murthy, S. N. B. (eds). AIAA Prog. In Astronautics and Aeronautics.Google Scholar
Chomiak, J. 1970. A Possible Propagation Mechanism of Turbulent Flames at High Reynolds Numbers. Comb. Flame, 15, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colin, O., Ducros, F., Veynante, D., and Poinsot, T. 2000a. A Thickened Flame Model for Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Premixed Combustion. Phys. Fluids., 12, 1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colin, O., Ducros, F., Veynante, D., and Poinsot, T. 2000b. A Thickened Flame Model for Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Premixed Combustion. Phys. Fluids., 12, 1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. W., and Cabot, W. H. 2005. Hyperviscosity for Shock-Turbulence Interactions. J. Comp. Phys., 203, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. W., and Riley, J. J. 1994. A Subgrid Model for Equilibrium Chemistry in Turbulent Flows. Phys. Fluids, 6, 2868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, E. T., Heiser, W. H., and Pratt, D. T. 1996. Fluid Phenomena in Scramjet Combustion Systems. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 28, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidenko, D. M., Gökalp, I., Dufour, E., and Magre, P. 2003. Numerical Simulation of Hydrogen Supersonic Combustion and Validation of Computational Approach. In Proc. 12th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies. doi:10.2514/6.2003-7033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowdy, D. R., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S. C., and Williams, A. 1990. The Use of Expanding Spherical Flames to Determine Burning Velocities and Stretch Effects in Hydrogen–Air Mixtures. Proc. Comb. Inst., 23, 325.Google Scholar
Drikakis, D., Fureby, C., Grinstein, F. F., and Liefendahl, M. 2007. ILES with Limiting Algorithms. Page 94 of: Implicit Large Eddy Simulation: Computing Turbulent Fluid Dynamics, Grinstein, F. F., Margolin, L., and B., Rider (eds). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Echekki, T., and Mastorakos, E. 2011. Turbulent Combustion Modeling. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehn, A. 2012. Towards Quantitative Diagnostics using Short-Pulse Laser Techniques. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Eklund, D. R., and Stouffer, S. D. 1994. A Numerical and Experimental Study of a Supersonic Combustor Employing Swept Ramp Fuel Injectors. In Proc. 30th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. doi:10.2514/6.1994-2819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlebasher, G., Hussaini, M., Speciale, C., and Sang, T. 1992. Towards the Large Eddy Simulation of Compressible Turbulent Flows. J. Fluid Mech., 238, 155–185.Google Scholar
Falempin, F. H. 2001. Scramjet Developments in France. Page 47 of: Scramjet Propulsion, Curran, E. T., and Murthy, S. N. B. (eds). AIAA Prog. in Astronautics and Aeronautics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedina, E., Fureby, C., Bulat, G., and Maier, W. 2017. Assessment of Finite Rate Chemistry Large Eddy Simulation Combustion Models. Flow, Turb. and Comb., 99, 385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fotia, M. L., and Driscoll, J. F. 2012. Isolator–Combustor Interactions in a Direct-Connect Ramjet–Scramjet Experiment. J. Prop. Power, 28, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fotia, M. L., and Driscoll, J. F. 2013. Ram–Scram Transition and Flame/Shock-Train Interactions in a Model Scramjet Experiment. J. Prop. Power, 29, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureby, C. 2000. Large Eddy Simulation of Combustion Instabilities in a Jet-Engine Afterburner Model. Comb. Sci. Tech, 161, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureby, C. 2009. LES Modeling of Combustion for Propulsion Applications. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 367, 2957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fureby, C. 2021a. Subgrid Models, Reaction Mechanisms, and Combustion Models in Large-Eddy Simulation of Supersonic Combustion. AIAA J., 59, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureby, C. 2021b. Supersonic Turbulent Combustion Physics – Grand Challenges for Numerical Modeling. Pages 25–26 of: Stratospheric Flying Opportunities for High-Speed Propulsion Concepts. The von Karman Institute Lecture Series.Google Scholar
Fureby, C. 2022. High Fidelity Numerical Simulations of Combustion for Airbreathing Engines. In: HiSST: 2nd Int. Conf. on High-Speed Vehicle Science Technology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureby, C., and Grinstein, F. F. 2002. Large Eddy Simulation of High Reynolds-Number Free and Wall Bounded Flows. J. Comp. Phys., 181, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureby, C., and Norrison, D. 2019. RANS, DES and LES of the Flow Past the 6:1 Prolate Spheroid at 10° and 20° Angle of Incidence. In Proc. AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum. doi:10.2514/6.2019-0085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamba, M., and Mungal, M. G. 2015a. Ignition, Flame Structure and Near-Wall Burning in Transverse Hydrogen Jets in Supersonic Crossflow. J. Fluid Mech., 780, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamba, M., and Mungal, M. G. 2015b. Ignition, Flame Structure and Near-Wall Burning in Transverse Hydrogen Jets in Supersonic Crossflow. J. Fluid Mech., 780, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamba, M., Miller, V. A., and Mungal, M. G. 2014. The Reacting Transverse Jet in Supersonic Crossflow: Physics and Properties. In Proc. 19th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. doi:10.2514/6.2014-3107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, A. D., Hannemann, K., Streelant, J., and Paull, A. 2004. Ground Testing of the HyShot Supersonic Combustion Flight Experiment in HEG and Comparison with Flight Data. In Proc. 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. doi:abs/10.2514/6.2004-3345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genin, F., and Menon, S. 2009. Simulation of Turbulent Mixing Behind a Strut Injector in Supersonic Flow. AIAA Journal, 48(3) 526–539.Google Scholar
Giacomazzi, E., Bruno, C., and Favini, B. 2000. Fractal Modeling of Turbulent Combustion. Comb. Theory and Modeling, 4, 391.Google Scholar
Giacomazzi, E., Picchia, F. R., and Arcidiacono, N. 2007. On the Distribution of Lewis and Schmidt Numbers in Turbulent Flames. In Proc. 30th Event of the Italian Section of the Combustion Institute.Google Scholar
Grinstein, F. F., and Fureby, C. 2007. On Flux Limiting based Implicit Large Eddy Simulation. J. Fluids Eng., 129, 1483.Google Scholar
Gruber, M. R., Jackson, K., and Liu, J. 2008. Hydrocarbon-Fueled Scramjet Combustor Flow path Development for Mach 6–8 HIFire Flight Experiments. Tech. Rept. ADA532732. Air Force Research Lab, Wright–Patterson AFB, OH Propulsion Directorate.Google Scholar
Gruber, M. R., Jackson, K., Eklund, D., Barhorst, T., Hass, N., Storch, A., and Liu, J. 2009. Instrumentation and Performance Analysis Plans for the HIFiRE Flight 2 Experiment. In Proc. 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. doi:10.2514/6.2009-5032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guiterrez, L. F., Tamagno, J. P., and Elaskar, S. A. 2016. RANS Simulation of Turbulent Diffusive Combustion Using OpenFoam. J. Appl. Fluid Mech., 9, 669.Google Scholar
Hairer, E., and Wanner, G. 1991. Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II: Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems, 2nd ed. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannemann, K., and Martinez Schramm, J. 2007. High Enthalpy, High Pressure Short Duration Testing of Hypersonic Flows. Page 1081 of: Springer Handbook of Experimental Fluid Mechanics, Tropea, C., Foss, J., and Yarin, A. (eds). Springer.Google Scholar
Hannemann, K., Karl, S., Martinez Schramm, J., and Steelant, J. 2010. Methodology of a Combined Ground Based Testing and Numerical Modeling Analysis of Supersonic Combustion Flow Paths. Shock Waves, 20, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannemann, K., Martinez Schramm, J., Laurence, S., and Karl, S. 2015. Shock Tunnel Free Flight Force Measurements using a Complex Model Configuration. Pages 2–6 of: 8th European Symp. on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles.Google Scholar
Hassan, E., Luke, E., Walters, K., Peterson, D., Eklund, D., and Hagenmaier, M. 2017. Computations of a Hydrogen-Fueled Scramjet Combustor on Locally Refined Meshes. Flow. Turb. Comb., 99, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, E., Peterson, D. M., Walters, K., and Luke, E. A. 2018. Reacting Dynamic Hybrid Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes/Large-Eddy Simulation of a Supersonic Cavity. In Proc. 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. doi:10.2514/6.2016-4566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, E. R., and Cant, R. S. 2001. Implications of a Flame Surface Density Approach to Large Eddy Simulation of Premixed Turbulent Combustion. Comb. Flame, 126, 1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, E. R., Sankaran, R., Sutherland, J. C., and Chen, J. H. 2005. Direct Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Combustion: Fundamental Insights Towards Predictive Models. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 165, 65.Google Scholar
Heinz, S. 2020. A Review of Hybrid RANS-LES Methods for Turbulent Flows: Concepts and Applications. Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 114, 100597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, W. H., Pratt, D. T, and Mehta, U. 1994. Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion. AIAA Education Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heltsley, W. N., Snyder, J. A., Houle, A. J., Davidson, D., Mungal, M. G., and Hanson, R. K. 2006. Design and Characterization of the Stanford 6 inch Expansion Tube. In Proc. 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. doi:10.2514/6.2006-4443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Z. W., He, G. Q., Qin, F., and Wei, X. G. 2015. Large Eddy Simulation of Flame Structure and Combustion Mode in a Hydrogen Fueled Supersonic Combustor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 40, 9815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingenito, A., Cecere, D., and Giacomazzi, E. 2013. Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Hydrogen-fueled Supersonic Combustion in an Air Cross-Flow. Shock Waves, 12, 481.Google Scholar
Jachimowski, C. J. 1988. An Analytical Study of the Hydrogen–air Reaction Mechanism with Application to Scramjet Combustion. NASA-TP-2791.Google Scholar
Jackson, K., Gruber, M. R., and Barhorst, T. 2009. The HIFiRE Flight 2 Experiment: an Overview and Status Update. In Proc. 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. doi:10.2514/6.2009-5029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, J., and Hussain, F. 1995. On the Identification of a Vortex. J. Fluid Mech., 285, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, W. P., Marquis, A. J., and Wang, F. 2015. Large Eddy Simulation of a Premixed Propane Turbulent Bluff Body Flame using the Eulerian Stochastic Field Method. Fuel, 140, 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juniper, M., Darabiha, N., and Candel, S. 2003. The Extinction Limits of a Hydrogen Counterflow Diffusion Flame above Liquid Oxygen. Comb. Flame, 135, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karl, S. 2011. Numerical Investigation of a Generic Scramjet Configuration. PhD Thesis, University of Dresden.Google Scholar
Karl, S., Hannemann, K., Steelant, J., and Mack, A. 2006. CFD Analysis of the HyShot Supersonic Combustion Flight Experiment Configuration. In Proc. 14th AIAA/AHI Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. doi:10.2514/6.2006-8041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karl, S., Schramm, J. M., Laurence, S., and Hannemann, K. 2011a. CFD Analysis of Unstart Characteristics of the HyShot-II Scramjet Configuration in the HEG Shock Tunnel. In Proc. 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. doi:10.2514/6.2011-2309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karl, S., Schramm, J. M., and Hannemann, K. 2011b. Post-Test Analysis of the LAPCAT-II Subscale Scramjet. Pages 26–29 of: HiSST: Int. Conf. on High-Speed Vehicle Science Technology.Google Scholar
Karl, S., Schramm, J. M., and Hannemann, K. 2020. Post-Test Analysis of the LAPCAT-II Subscale Scramjet. CEAS Space J., 12, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawai, S., and Lele, S. K. 2008. Localized Artificial Diffusivity Scheme for Discontinuity Capturing on Curvilinear Meshes. J. Comp. Phys., 227, 9498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, W.-W., and Menon, S. 1995. A New Dynamic One Equation Subgrid-scale Model for Large Eddy Simulations. In Proc. 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. doi:10.2514/6.1995-356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koo, H., and Donde, P. Raman, V. 2013. LES-Based Eulerian PDF Approach for the Simulation of Scramjet Combustors. Proc. Comb. Inst., 34, 2093.Google Scholar
Kurgaonov, A., and Tadmor, E. 2000. New High Resolution Central Schemes for Nonlinear Conservation Laws and Convection–Diffusion Equations. J. Comp. Phys., 160, 241.Google Scholar
Kurgaonov, A., Noelle, S., and Petrova, G. 2001. Semidiscrete Central Upwind Schemes for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws and Hamilton–Jacobi Equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comp., 23, 707.Google Scholar
Kwon, O. C., and Faeth, G. M. 2001. Flame/Stretch Interactions of Premixed Hydrogen-Fueled Flames: Measurements and Predictions. Comb. Flame, 124, 590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacaze, G., Vane, Z., and Oefelein, J. C. 2017. Large Eddy Simulation of the HIFiRE Direct Connect Rig Scramjet Combustor. In Proc. 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. doi:10.2514/6.2017-0142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langener, T. Steelant, J., Karl, S., and Hannemann, K. 2012. Design and Optimization of a Small Scale M=8 Scramjet Propulsion System. In Proc. Space Propulsion 2012.Google Scholar
Langener, T., and Steelant, J. 2014. The LAPCAT MR2 Hypersonic Cruiser Concept. 29th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia, 7–12.Google Scholar
Larsson, J., Kawai, S., Bodart, J., and Bermejo-Moreno, I. 2016. Large Eddy Simulation with Modeled Wall-stress: Recent Progress and Future Directions. Mech. Eng. Rev., 3, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, J. L., Vicquelin, R., and Bermejo-Moreno, I. 2011. Large Eddy Simulations of the HyShot II Scramjet. Center for Turbulence Research Annual Research Briefs, 63.Google Scholar
Laurence, S. J., Karl, S., Martinez Schramm, J., and Hannemann, K. 2013. Transient Fluid-Combustion Phenomena in a Model Scramjet. J. Fluid Mech., 772, 85.Google Scholar
Layton, W., and Lewandowski, R. 2006. Residual Stress of Approximate Deconvolution Large Eddy Simulation Models of Turbulence. J. Turb., 46, 1.Google Scholar
Magnussen, B. F. 1981. On the Structure of Turbulence and Generalized Eddy Dissipation Concept for Chemical Reactions in Turbulent Flow. 19th AIAA Aerospace Meeting, St. Louis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinov, N. M., Westbrook, C. K., and Pitz, W. J. 1995. Detailed and Global Chemical Kinetics Model for Hydrogen. 8th Int. Symp. on Transport Properties, San Fransisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Menon, S. 2000. Subgrid Combustion Modeling for Large Eddy Simulations. Int. J. Engine Res., 1, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menon, S., and Fureby, C. 2010. Computational Combustion. In: Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Blockley, R., and Shyy, W. (eds). John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Menter, F. R. 1994. Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications. AIAA J., 32, 1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micka, D. J. 2010. Combustion Stabilization, Structure, and Spreading in a Laboratory Dual-Mode Scramjet Combustor. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Micka, D. J., and Driscoll, J. F. 2008a. Dual-Mode Combustion of a Jet in Cross-Flow with Cavity Flame-holder. In Proc. 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit. doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micka, D. J., and Driscoll, J. F. 2008b. Reaction Zone Imaging in a Dual-Mode Scramjet Combustor using CH-PLIF. In Proc. 44th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-5071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micka, D. J., and Driscoll, J. F. 2009. Combustion Characteristics of a Dual-Mode Scramjet Combustor with Cavity Flameholder. Proc. Comb. Inst., 32, 2397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moin, P., Squires, K., Cabot, W., and Lee, S. 1991. A Dynamic Subgrid‐scale Model for Compressible Turbulence and Scalar Transport. Phys. Fluids A, 3, 2746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoud, F., and Ducros, F. 1999. Subgrid-scale Stress Modelling based on the Square of the Velocity Gradient Tensor. Flow. Turb. Comb., 62, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, T., and Fureby, C. 2021. LES of H2-air Jet Combustion in High Enthalpy Supersonic Crossflow. Phys. Fluids, 33, 035133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, T., Yu, R., Doan, N. A. K., Langella, I., Swaminathan, N., and Bai, X. S. 2019. Filtered Reaction Rate Modelling in Moderate and High Karlovitz Number Flames: an a Priori Analysis. Flow Turb. Comb., 103, 643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordin-Bates, K., Fureby, C., Karl, S., and Hannemann, K. 2017. Understanding Scramjet Combustion using LES of the HyShot II Combustor. Proc. Comb. Inst., 36, 2893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oevermann, M. 2000. Numerical Investigation of Turbulent Hydrogen Combustion in a SCRAMJET using Flamelet Modeling. Aerosp. Sci. Tech., 4, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Øksendal, B. 2003. Stochastic Differential Equations. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oschwald, M., Guerra, R., and Waidmann, W. 1993. Investigation of the Flowfield of a Scramjet Combustor with Parallel H2-Injection through a Strut by Particle Image Displacement Velocimetry. Page 498 of: Int. Symp. On Special topics in Chem. Prop.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, G. M., and Taylor, P. J. 1996. Theory and Applications of Numerical Analysis. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pino Martin, M., Piomelli, U., and Candler, G. V. 2000. Subgrid-Scale Models for Compressible Large-Eddy Simulations. Theoret. Comp. Fluid Dyn., 13, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piomelli, U. 2008. Wall-Layer Models for Large-Eddy Simulations. Prog. Aero. Sci., 44, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piomelli, U., Ferziger, J., Moin, P., and Kim, J. 1989. New Approximate Boundary Conditions for Large Eddy Simulations of Wall-Bounded Flows. Phys. Fluids A 1, 1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitsch, H. 2006. Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Combustion. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 38, 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potturi, A. S., and Edwards, J. 2012. LES/RANS Simulation of a Supersonic Combustion Experiment. In Proceedings of the 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2012-611,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potturi, A. S., and Edwards, J. 2013. Investigation of Subgrid Closure Models for Finite-Rate Scramjet Combustion. In Proceedings of the 43rd Fluid Dynamics Conference. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-2461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabelnikov, V., and Fureby, C. 2013. LES Combustion Modeling for High Re Flames using a Multi-phase Analogy. Comb. Flame, 160, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabelnikov, V. A., and Penzin, V. I. 2001. Scramjet Research and Development in Russia. Page 223 of: Scramjet Propulsion, Curran, E. T., and Murthy, S. N. B. (eds). AIAA Prog. in Astronautics and Aeronautics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagaut, P. 2001. Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saghafian, A., Tarrapon, V., and Pitsch, H. 2015a. An Efficient Flamelet-Based Combustion Model for Compressible Flows. Comb. Flame, 162, 652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saghafian, A., Shunn, L., Philips, D., and Ham, F. 2015b. Large Eddy Simulations of the HiFiRE Scramjet using a Compressible Flamelet/Progress Variable Approach. Proc. Comb. Inst., 35, 2163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelsen, S., McDonell, V., Greene, M., and Beerer, D. 2006. Correlation of Ignition Delay with Natural Gas and IGCC type Fuels. Technical Report DOE Award Number: DE-FC26-02NT41431; University of California: Irvine.Google Scholar
Schramm, J. M. 2021. Experimental Investigations on Hypersonic Combustion in a Large-scale High Enthalpy Short Duration Facility. Pages 25–26 of: Stratospheric Flying Opportunities for High-Speed Propulsion Concepts. The von Karman Institute.Google Scholar
Schramm, J. M., Karl, S., Hannemann, K, and Streelant, J. 2008. Ground Testing of the HyShot II Scramjet Configuration in HEG. In Proceedings of the 15th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-2547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, U. 1975. Subgrid Scale Model for Finite Difference Simulations of Turbulent Flow in Plane Channels and Annuli. J. Comp.Phys., 18, 3765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, C. 2009. The Scramjet Engine: Processes and Characteristics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seleznev, R. K. 2018. History of Scramjet Propulsion Development. IOP Conf. Series: J. Physics: Conf. Series, 1009, 012028.Google Scholar
Slack, M., and Grillo, A. 1977. Investigation of Hydrogen-Air Ignition Sensitized by Nitric Oxide and by Nitrogen Oxide. NASA Report CR-2896.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, J. 1963. General Circulation Experiments with the Primitive Equations. I: The Basic Experiment. Mon. Weather Rev., 91, 99.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, M. K., Hass, N. E., and Paull, A. 2006. Flight Data Analysis of the HyShot II Flight Experiment. AIAA J., 44, 2366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smooke, M. D., and Giovangigli, V. 1991. Formulation of the Premixed and Nonpremixed Test Problems. Page 1 of: Lecture Notes in Physics: Reduced Kinetic Mechanisms and Asymptotic Approximations for Methane-Air Flames, Smooke, M. D. (ed). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, A. D., Robertson, J., Zanders, D. L., and Skinner, G. B. 1965. Shock Tube Studies of Fuel-Air Ignition Characteristics. Report AFAPL-TR-65-93-1965.Google Scholar
Spalart, P. R., Jou, W. H., Strelets, M., and Allmaras, S. R. 1997. Comments on the Feasibility of LES for Wings, and on a Hybrid RANS/LES Approach. Page 137 of: Advances in DNS/LES, Liu, C. and Liu, Z. (eds). Greyden Press.Google Scholar
Spalding, B. 1961. A Single Formula for the Law of the Wall. Transactions of the ASME J. Appl. Mech., 28, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speziale, C. G. 1998. Turbulence Modeling for Time-dependent RANS and VLES: A Review. AIAA J., 36, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steelant, J., Varvill, R., Defoort, S., Hanneman, K., and Marini, M. 2015. Achievements Obtained for Sustained Hypersonic Flight within the LAPCAT-II Project. In Proceedings of the 20th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-3677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoltz, S., and Adams, N. A. 2001. The Approximate Deconvolution Model for Large-Eddy Simulations of Compressible Flows and its Application to Shock-Turbulent-Boundary-Layer Interaction. Phys. Fluids, 13, 2985.Google Scholar
Stoltz, S., Adams, N. A., and Kleiser, L. 2001. An Approximate Deconvolution Procedure for Large-Eddy Simulation. Phys. Fluids, 11, 1699.Google Scholar
Storch, A. M., Bynum, M., Liu, J., and Gruber, M. 2011. Combustor Operability and Performance Verification for HIFiRE Flight 2. In Proceedings of 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-2249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, G. 1968. On Construction and Comparison of Difference Schemes. SIAM J. Num. Anal., 5, 506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunami, T., Magre, P., Bresson, A., Grisch, F., Orain, M., and Kodera, M. 2005. Experimental Study of Strut Injectors in a Supersonic Combustor using OH-PLIF. In Proceedings of the 13th International Space Planes and Hypersonics Systems and Technologies Conference. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-3304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanahashi, M., Fujimura, M., and Miyauchi, T. 2000. Coherent Fine Scale Eddies in Turbulent Premixed Flames. Proc. Comb. Inst., 28, 5729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuttle, S. G., Carter, C. D., and Hsu, K. Y. 2014. Particle Image Velocimetry in a Non-Reacting and Reacting High-Speed Cavity. J. Propul. Power, 30, 576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicquelin, R., Fiorina, B., Payet, S., Darabiha, N., and Gicquel, O. 2011. Coupling Tabulated Chemistry with Compressible CFD Solvers. Proc. Comb. Inst., 33, 1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent-Radonnier, A., Moule, Y., and Ferrier, M. 2014. Combustion of Hydrogen in Hot Air Flows within LAPCAT-II Dual Mode Ramjet Combustor at Onera-LAERTE Facility – Experimental and Numerical Investigation. In Proceedings of the 19th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-2932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent-Randonnier, A., Ristori, A., Sabelnikov, V., Zettervall, N., and Fureby, C. 2018. An Experimental and Computational Study of Hydrogen-Air Combustion in the LAPCAT II Supersonic Combustor. Proc. Comb. Inst., 37, 3703.Google Scholar
Viola, N., Fusaro, R., Saracoglu, B., Schram, C., Grewe, V., Martinez, J., Marini, M., Hernandez, S., Lammers, K., Vincent, A., Hauglustaine, D., Liebhardt, B., Linke, G., and Fureby, C. 2021. Main Challenges and Goals of the H2020 STRATOFLY Project. Aerotecnica Missili and Spazio, 100, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waidmann, W., Brummund, U., and Nuding, J. 1995a. Experimental Investigation of Supersonic Ramjet Combustion (SCRAMJET). Page 1473 of: Eighth Int. Symp. on Transp. Phenom. in Comb.Google Scholar
Waidmann, W., Alff, F., Brummund, U., M., Böhm, W., Clauss, and Oschwald, M. 1995b. Supersonic Combustion of Hydrogen/Air in a Scramjet Combustion Chamber. Space Tech., 15, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., You, X., Joshi, A. V., Davis, S. G., Laskin, A., Egolfopoulos, F., and Law, C. K. 2007. USC Mech. Version II. High-Temperature Combustion Reaction Model of H2/CO/C1-C4 Compounds. Mechanism and additional information is available at https://ignis.usc.edu/USC_Mech_II.htm.Google Scholar
Yanenk, N. N., and Shokin, Y. I. 1969. First Differential Approximation Method and Approximate Viscosity of Difference Schemes. Phys. Fluids, 12, 28.Google Scholar
Zettervall, N., and Fureby, C. 2018. A Computational Study of Ramjet, Scramjet and Dual-mode Ramjet Combustion in Combustor with a Cavity Flameholder. In Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhouqin, F., Mingbo, S., and Weidong, L. 2010. Flamelet/Progress-Variable Model for Large Eddy Simulation of Supersonic Reacting Flow. In Proceedings of the 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. AIAA Paper 2010–6878.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×