Sebastian Karl, Jan Martinez Schramm and Klaus Hannemann

DOI Number XXX-YYY-ZZZ

Conference Number HiSST 2018_1640846

A subscale flight experiment configuration (SSFE) propelled by a Mach 8 supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) was designed within the framework of the European Comission co-funded Long Term Advanced Propulsion Concepts And Technologies (LAPCAT) II project. The focus of this design excercise was to demonstrate – by wind tunnel experiments – the ability of the proposed scramjet engine to produce adequate thrust for hypersonic level flight of the subscale vehicle. The design of a small engine is particularly difficult. This is due to the unfavorable ratio of wetted surface to volume and the relatively long combustor needed for complete fuel consumption. To compensate for these adverse effects, the SSFE scramjet operates near an equivalence ratio of one and fuel mixing was carefully optimized by a two stage multi-strut injection concept. The thrust measurements for the 1.5 m long vehicle were carried out in DLR’s High Enthalpy Shock Tunnel Göttingen (HEG) for a flight condition of Mach 7.4 at 27 km altitude. The experiments confirmed precedent CFD design predictions of the total thrust and demonstrated the operability of the complete subscale concept. Yet, significant discrepancies between the CFD analyses, which were performed to design the vehicle, and subsequent detailed measurements of the pressure distribution in the combustor were observed und could so far not be resolved. This paper focuses on a further analysis of these residual discrepancies. The influence of different modelling parameters such as boundary layer transition locations and the application of different turbulence models are discussed. This is supported by recently available measurements of the intake surface heat flux distribution by temperature sensitive paint. These results allow for the first time to apply realistic assumptions on the laminar to turbulent boundary layer transition to numerical simulations. CFD predictions of the detailed flow properties inside the combustion chamber are assessed based on available high resolution pressure measurements. Main characteristics of the combustion process and the flow structure inside the combustor are postulated based on a combination of CFD results and available experimental data. It was found that the CFD predictions of the combustor pressure distribution are sensitive to the configuration of the intake boundary layer. Different modelling assumptions strongly influence crossflow structures which develop on the intake and which are able to trigger different combustion modes in the upstream region of the combustor. The effect on total vehicle performance and the pressure distribution in the downstream part of the combustor and thrust nozzles remains limited. Yet, a significant impact on the structure and magnitude of the surface pressure distribution was observed. I.e., the large combustor peak pressures, which occur in the experiment, can be explained by the occurrence of a strong shock train in the vicinity of the combustor wall.

Read the full paper from the Springer website >

Email
Print
LinkedIn
The paper above was part of  proceedings of a CEAS event and as such the author has signed a publication agreement to have their paper published in the repository. In the case this paper is found somewhere else CEAS always links to the other source.  CEAS takes great care in making the correct content available to the reader. If any mistakes are found  in the listings please contact us directly at papers@aerospacerepository.org and we will correct the listing promptly.  CEAS cannot be held liable either for mistakes in editorial or technical aspects, nor for omissions, nor for the correctness of the content. In particular, CEAS does not guarantee completeness or correctness of information contained in external websites which can be accessed via links from CEAS’s websites. Despite accurate research on the content of such linked external websites, CEAS cannot be held liable for their content. Only the content providers of such external sites are liable for their content. Should you notice any mistake in technical or editorial aspects of the CEAS site, please do not hesitate to inform us.