4.6 Article

Modes of plasma-stabilized combustion in cavity-based M=2 configuration

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL THERMAL AND FLUID SCIENCE
Volume 124, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2021.110355

Keywords

Supersonic combustion; Plasma assistance; Stability analysis

Funding

  1. Air Force Research Laboratory and Innovative Scientific Solutions, Inc. [SB20231]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper investigates the modes of plasma-stabilized supersonic combustion with a cavity-based flameholding configuration, testing different combustion scenarios and comparing rail discharge performance with Plasma-Injection Modules. Dimensionless analysis shows good agreement of in-cavity combustion mode with the Ozawa stability diagram, while plasma-assisted bulk combustion differs substantially from this formalism.
This paper considers the modes of plasma-stabilized supersonic combustion in a cavity-based flameholding configuration. The testing was performed in the SBR-50 supersonic facility at the University of Notre Dame under the following conditions: Mach number M = 2, stagnation pressure and temperature P-0 = 1-3.2 bar, T-0 = 295-750 K, and an ethylene injection rate of (m) over dot(C2H4) = 0-8 g/s. A rail type electric discharge is employed in this work, which represents a modification of the previously explored quasi-DC (Q-DC) configuration. Two principally different cases are realized and described in detail: in- or over-the-cavity combustion, and bulk combustion characterized by a significant increase of pressure downstream of the fuel injection ports. Rail discharge performance is compared to the performance of Plasma-Injection Modules (PIMs) using a 1D analysis. Dimensionless analysis of the plasma-assisted combustor performance indicates reasonable agreement of the in-cavity combustion mode with the Ozawa stability diagram, while the plasma-assisted bulk combustion is essentially distinct from this formalism.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available