4.7 Article

Comparison of different lobe-injectors on fuel mixing characteristics of single jet at the supersonic combustion chamber

Journal

AEROSPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2021.107193

Keywords

Combustion chamber; Fuel mixing; Supersonic jet; Lobe orifice; Hydrogen jet

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia [FP-007-43]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article investigates the impacts of orifice shape on the mixing mechanism of fuel jets into the supersonic air stream of Mach=4, showing that the mixing efficiency of the 3-lobe injector is about 25% more than that of the 2-lobe and 4-lobe injectors.
The successful operation of the scramjet engine considerably relies on the mixing performance of the fuel and air in the combustor where fuel has short residence time to mix with the supersonic air stream. This article investigates the impacts of orifice shape on the mixing mechanism of fuel jets into the supersonic air stream of Mach=4. Circulation factor, penetration, and mixing efficiency of three types of lobe injector (2-lobe, 3-lobe, and 4-lobe) are broadly compared to achieve an optimum model for injector type. Computational fluid dynamic is considered for the modeling of these three lobe-injectors at a high-speed air stream. The mechanism of fuel mixing and duel distribution is fully discussed and the main effective terms are introduced. Our results show that the formation of the upstream circulation would result in the horseshoe vortex which improves fuel penetration in the depth of the domain. The comparison of mixing performance of these orifices shows that the mixing efficiency of the 3-lobe is about 25% more than that of the 2-lobe and 4-lobe. (C) 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available