Well, I’m accustomed to forthrightness from the outset and to my good fortune, unaccustomed to direct competition, particularly in the case of former clients. To my dismay, they’d already sought the opinions of several other agents. and Early K., “ Engineering Model for Analysis of Scramjet Combustor Performance with Finite Rate Chemistry,” AIAA Paper 1988-3258, 1988.After I’d finished my presentation and offered a candid considered opinion, they dropped the first shoe. J., “ Analytical Study of the Hydrogen–Air Reaction Mechanism with Application to Scramjet Combustion,” NASA TP-2791, 1988.
MATLAB, Software Package, Ver. R2011b, The MathWorks, Natick, MA, 2011. D., Modern Compressible Flow, McGraw–Hill, New York, 2003, pp. 127–190. Chinitz W., “ Theoretical Studies of the Ignition and Combustion of Silane-Hydrogen-Air Mixtures,” NASA CR-3876, 1985.
Dissertation, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN, 2012. Trebs A., Ramp Injector Scale Effects on Supersonic Combustion, Ph.D. doi: JPPOEL 0748-4658 Link Google Scholar and McDaniel J., “ Experimental Investigation of a Supersonic Swept Ramp Injector Using Laser-Induced Iodine Fluorescence,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994, pp. 129–135. and Vitt R., “ Vortex Generation and Mixing in Three-Dimensional Supersonic Combustors,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995, pp. 419–426. doi: AIAJAH 0001-1452 Link Google Scholar and Zukoski E., “ Investigation of a Contoured Wall Injector for Hypervelocity Mixing Augmentation,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 31, No. 6, 1993, pp. 1014–1021. and Nishioka M., “ Supersonic Mixing and Combustion Control Using Streamwise Vortices,” AIAA Paper 1998-3271, 1998. and Hsu K., “ In-Stream Hypermixer Fueling Pylons in Supersonic Flow,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2009, pp. 885–901. P., “ Evaluation of Parallel Injector Configurations for Mach 2 Combustion,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1992, pp. 491–499. White F., Viscous Fluid Flow, 3rd ed., McGraw–Hill, New York, 2006, pp. 505–570. Unsteadiness within the flameholding region also varied greatly over the range of conditions studied, and largest unsteadiness was observed at intermediate boundary-layer heights. It was found that flame shape changed, the persistence of the vortex cores was reduced, and combustion efficiency rose as the incident boundary layer grew.
By varying the boundary-layer thickness from 40% of the ramp height to 150% of the ramp height, changes in the combustion flowfield downstream of the injector could be diagnosed.
The experiment was equipped with a variable-length inlet duct that facilitated varying the boundary-layer development length for nearly constant injector shock structure conditions. Nominal test section entrance conditions were Mach 2, 131 kPa static pressure, and 756 K stagnation temperature. The combustion field downstream of a 10 deg compression ramp injector has been studied experimentally using wall static pressure measurement, OH planar laser-induced fluorescence, and 2 kHz intensified video filtered at 320 nm for OH emission.