aiaa presentation
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given at the International Spaceplanes and Hypersonic Systems and Technology conference in Bremen, Germany in October 2009. Topic was the effect of molecular weight on injectant mixing in supersonic flowTRANSCRIPT
The Effect of Injectant Molecular Weight on Transverse Injection Mixing
Processes in Supersonic Flow
Virginia TechOctober 2009
1
Scott K BurgerJoseph A Schetz
AndRonald Ungewitter
Objectives
• To compare the mixing of gases of widely varying molecular weight in transverse injection into a supersonic flow
• To perform this comparison at several flow conditions
• To determine the validity of turbulence modeling in a RANS-based unstructured CRUNCH CFD code by comparison with experimental results
2
Overview• Two gasses were used for this study
– Air (MW=28.97 kg/kmol)– Methane (MW=16.04 kg/kmol)
• Helium results from earlier Virginia Tech studies were also available
• Three transverse injection cases examined1) Injection into an undisturbed Mach 4 free stream2) With a shock impinging upstream of injector3) With a shock impinging downstream of injector
center
3
Facility• All tests were performed in
the Virginia Tech Supersonic Wind Tunnel
• Blow-down type tunnel with approximately 25 second run time
• Mach 4 nozzle• Plenum pressure PID
controlled set point 1035 kPa
Supersonic Wind Tunnel.a) Side view, b) Top view
4
Experiment Layout• Injector insert
mounted flush into tunnel floor plate
• Slots for traversable probe downstream of injector
• Wedge mounted on sting to generate impinging shock for case 2) and case 3). Removed for case 1)
Experiment set up, tunnel doors open for access. Flow left to right
5
Injection Conditions• Single circular hole injector,
diameter 3.23 mm, aligned 30 degrees to the wall
• Sonic injection• Dynamic pressure ratio:
• Mass flow rate– 10.0 g/s air– 6.7 g/s methane
1.2)(
)(2
2
u
uq j
6
Concentration Probe• Three sensors,
common housing– Temperature (K-type
thermocouple)– Pressure (tap
connected to external transducer)
– Hot film
• Forced aspiration by vacuum pump ensures bow shock is swallowed inside housing
Schematic diagram of the concentration probe
7
• A calibration is performed by sampling known concentrations in a vacuum tank
• From sensor readings the relative concentrations of species can be determined
• Calibration can be performed for any binary mixture
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 402.75
3.25
3.75
4.25
4.75
5.25
% CH4
100%Logarithmic (100%)90%Logarithmic (90%)
Concentration Probe Pressure
Hot
Film
Vol
tage
Calibration curves for methane and air
8
Miniature Five-Hole Probe
• five pressure ports, one at tip center and four equally spaced around
• Each port contains a fast response internal piezoelectric pressure transducer
Five hole probe, left and tip design, right (dimensions in inches)
9
• The five-hole probe is calibrated for Mach number by comparing the ratio PA/P1 at varying Mach number – PA=average of outer
port pressures– P1=center port pressure
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.71.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5-Hole Probe Mach Number Calibration
pA/p1
Ma
ch
10
• The five-hole can also be used to measure the flow angle
• A calibration map was created by recording the ratios of the outer port pressures at a range of pitch and yaw angles.
11
Case 1
Undisturbed Mach 4 free stream
12
Case 2
Shock impingement 4.5 injector diameters upstream of
injector
13
Case 3
Shock impingement 2.5 injector diameters downstream of
injector
14
Mach Number Contours
• Mach number data taken at a grid of points encompassing the plume
• Plume is identified by region of lower Mach number
• Contours of air and methane compared by maximum height of selected contour
Mach number contour for air injection into undisturbed free stream. Data below red line extrapolated
15
Mach Contour Comparison
• Mach 3 contour was used for case 1, Mach 2 contour used for case 2 and 3
• In all cases the air Mach contour penetrates higher than the equivalent methane contour
• Distances normalized to effective diameter:
16
Case No Shock
Injectant Air CH4
Max Mach 3 contour height
5.0 4.4
Case Shock Upstream
Injectant Air CH4
Max Mach 2 contour height
4.0 3.6
Case Shock Downstream
Injectant Air CH4
Max Mach 2 contour height
3.6 3.3
mmCdd deff 03.3
Mach Number Components• Combining the flow
angularity with Mach number the magnitude and direction of the Mach number in the transverse direction computed at each point on the grid
• Counter-rotating vortex pair created by the injection plume can be clearly identified
Mach number components for air injection into undisturbed free stream
17
M=0.5
Mach Number Components Comparison
• The vertical height of the vortex centers, , and horizontal spacing between them, , allows for comparison between surveys
• The vortices generated by the air injection appear to penetrate slightly higher, and spread slightly wider then the methane injection in all cases
• Vortices are lower and more closely spaced in the shock impingement cases especially with the shock impinging downstream of the injector
18
Case No Shock Shock Upstream Shock Downstream
Injectant Air CH4 Air CH4 Air CH4
2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6
3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.1 2.0yVzV
zV
yV
Concentration Contours• Concentration at each grid
point is used to generate concentration contours
• Note dual plume core related to vortex pair
• Contours at each case compared by – Maximum concentration– Height of maximum
concentration– Width of plume concentration
greater then stoichiometric value
Concentration contour for methane injection into undisturbed free stream, data below red line is extrapolated
19
Concentration Comparison
20
No Shock Shock Upstream Shock Downstream
Plume width 4.65 4.62 4.29
Vertical location of max concentration
1.45 1.32 0.99
Maximum concentration
0.64 0.47 0.35
• Addition of shock impingement decreases plume height and reduces maximum concentration
• Shock impinging shortly downstream of injector decreases maximum concentration and plume height further
Concentration Contour Comparison
• Shock interaction reduces penetration• Shock impingement downstream increases
mixing
Undisturbed free stream Shock upstream of injector Shock downstream of injector
21
CFD
• Computational comparison performed with RANS based unstructured CFD code CRUNCH CFD
• Comparison performed for case of undisturbed free stream and case of shock impingement downstream of injector
No Shock Downstream Shock
Shock reflection location
Y= 6 y/Deq
Oblique shock
Symmetry Plane Pressure Contour
22
Mach Number Contour CFD Comparison
Experimental Data CRUNCH CFD
No
Shock
No
ShockShock
Downstream
Shock
Z= 6 y/Deq
Z= 6 y/Deq
23
Concentration Contour CFD Comparison
Experiment Data CRUNCH CFD
No Shock
Shock Downstream
Z= 6 y/Deq
Z= 6 y/Deq
24
Conclusions• Higher molecular weight seems to increase
penetration, but the effect is weak• Shock impingement before, or shortly after injection
reduces penetration• Interaction of a shock and an emerging jet increases
mixing• Modern RANS-based CFD with appropriate turbulence
modeling can provide predictions adequate for design• More research on turbulence modeling, including
better representation of the effects of molecular weight is warranted
25