Effects of wall cavity and fuel injection pressure on the performance of a non-reacting supersonic combustor.

This study numerically investigates the flow field of a non-reacting cavity-configured scramjet (Supersonic Combustion Ramjet) combustor at various fuel injection pressures by solving the 2D Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations, species transport equations, and Menter SST k-ω model. The aim of this research is to reveal the effects of wall cavity insertion and fuel injection pressure (FIP) on the crucial performance parameters i.e., fuel-air mixing efficiency (MxE), total pressure recovery (TPR), and mass-averaged Mach number (MAMN). Accordingly, two trapezoidal cavities of aspect ratio 7 are introduced on the opposite walls of a rectangular combustor. The combustor entrance is configured with rearward-facing steps and it intakes finite parallel air streams through finite-width inlets. Gaseous hydrogen jets are injected 30 mm downstream from the combustor entrance and 10 mm upstream from the cavity leading edge. FIP is varied according to the fuel-to-freestream pressure ratios (FFPR) of 4.5, 9.0, 13.5, and 18.0. The results of the cavity-configured combustor are then compared with the performance of the combustor in the absence of the wall cavities. The results delineate the change in flow structures with the inclusion of wall cavities and variation in FIP. Insight physics of mixing, total pressure loss, and MAMN in different regions of the combustor are studied and the results are quantified for comparison. MxE in a cavity-configured combustor does not monotonically increase with decreasing FFPR as found in the combustor without wall cavities. The shock-shear layer interactions (SSLIs) play a dominant role in mixing inside the cavity-configured combustor. The results also demonstrate that the insertion of wall cavities can increase fuel-air MxE through the formation of cavity recirculation zones. In the cavity-configured combustor, a maximum of 45% MxE is achieved for FFPR 4.5, which is 4% higher than the value obtained from the combustor without the cavities with an expense of 3% greater total pressure loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]