Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37 (2019) 3703–3711

www.elsevier.com/locate/proci

An experimental and computational study of

hydrogen–air combustion in the LAPCAT II supersonic
combustor
A. Vincent-Randonnier a, V. Sabelnikov a,b, A. Ristori a, N. Zettervall c,
C. Fureby c,∗
a ONERA – The French Aerospace Lab., F-91761 Palaiseau, France
b Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI), 140180 Zhukovsky, Moscow Region, Russia
c Defense Security Systems Technology, The Swedish Defense Research Agency – FOI, SE 147 25 Tumba, Stockholm,

Sweden
Received 30 November 2017; accepted 31 May 2018
Available online 5 September 2018

Abstract

Dual-mode ramjet/scramjet engines are considered a promising propulsion system for the next genera-
tion commercial high-speed transport flight vehicles. In this study we combine experimental measurements
of high-speed (subsonic and supersonic) combustion at different operating conditions in the LAPCAT-II
dual-mode ramjet/scramjet combustor with Large Eddy Simulations (LES) using finite rate chemistry mod-
els and skeletal H2 –air combustion chemistry. The combustor geometrically consists of four sections, and
experiments have been realized for wall injection of H2 in a Mach = 2 vitiated air-flow for total pressures
and temperatures of p0 = 0.40 MPa, 1414 K < T0 < 1707 K, and a fixed equivalence ratio of φ=0.15. For
this p0 the combustor is over-expanded, and the transition from supersonic to subsonic flow occurs at the
beginning of the fourth combustor section. The flow and combustion diagnostics include measurements of
p0 and T0 upstream of the combustor, wall-pressure profiles and Schlieren as well as OH∗ chemiluminescence
imaging. The computational set-up consists of the full combustor, from the nozzle into the dump-tank. The
computational model is composed of a compressible finite rate chemistry LES model, using the mixed sub-
grid flow model and the Partially Stirred Reactor (PaSR) combustion model, together with a novel skeletal 22
step H2 –air reaction mechanism. Qualitative as well as quantitative comparisons between experiments and
simulations show reasonably good agreement, but most importantly reveal a high sensitivity of both the LES
predictions and the experiments to T0 . The LES results are further used to describe the underlying mech-
anisms of flow, wall-injection, mixing, self-ignition and turbulent combustion, and how these interrelated
processes are modified by increasing the total temperature under otherwise identical conditions.
© 2018 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Supersonic combustion; Dual-mode ramjet/scramjet; Finite-rate chemistry LES; Skeletal chemistry

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fureby@foi.se (C. Fureby).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.05.127
1540-7489 © 2018 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
3704 A. Vincent-Randonnier et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37 (2019) 3703–3711
1. Introduction and background
The global incentive to consider the re-
introduction of commercial high-speed transport
to reduce the duration of antipodal flights to less
than four hours require novel civil hypersonic
aircraft. Among a plethora of technical, environ-
mental, human and economic factors to consider,
the propulsion plant and its integration in the flight
vehicle is a crucial component. Designing stable
air-breathing high-speed combustion systems
remains a major challenge, where fuel must be
mixed, ignited, and burned within a few millisec-
onds. The large-scale and extreme thermodynamic
conditions in hypersonic aircraft make experiments
costly and challenging, [1]. Data are often limited
to combustion images and sparse measurements of
pressure, temperature and thrust with conventional
techniques. Validated computational models are
the most promising option to bridge the gap be-
tween ground-testing and full-scale flight-testing.
Moreover, these have the additional benefit of
providing a full-field view of the flow physics.
Injection of fuel, e.g., hydrogen, H2 and small
hydrocarbons, in a supersonic hot air-stream and
its subsequent mixing, self-ignition and transition
into turbulent combustion have been studied ex-
perimentally, e.g., [2–5], and computationally, e.g.,
[6–9], for different injector–combustor configura-
tions. This is a very challenging problem that must
be better understood before reliable supersonic
propulsion systems using this technique can be re-
alized. More specific issues include: (i) the short
combustor residence time combined with the slow
ignition kinetics at low and moderate tempera-
tures, (ii) interactions between shock-waves and a
chemically reacting plume, (iii) reduced efficiency
of fuel-air mixing due to compressibility effects,
(iv) combustion instabilities, particularly at high
flight-altitudes, and (v) the total temperature, T0 ,
and equivalence ratio, φ, effects on self-ignition
and thermal choking. To minimize internal losses,
transverse fuel injection without cavity stabilization
is preferred [9], requiring that flame stabilization is
controlled either by an upstream recirculation re-
gion, the formation of coherent structures with fuel
and air supporting a turbulent diffusion flame, or
by shock-induced combustion.
Here we combine experimental investigations
of supersonic combustion at different conditions in
the LAPCAT-II dual-mode ramjet/scramjet com-
bustor [10], with finite rate chemistry Large Eddy
Simulation (LES) combined with skeletal H2 –air
combustion chemistry. The operating conditions
are chosen to be representative of dual-mode
ramjet/scramjet combustion. The objectives are to
investigate transverse mixing, self-ignition, flame
stabilization and compressible turbulent combus-
tion, and the dependence of these phenomena on
T0 at fixed values of φ. Results from experiments
and LES will be compared, providing reciprocal
validation of the methods, and used together to
provide a more comprehensive understanding
of the flow, mixing and combustion phenomena
occurring under dual-mode conditions in this
combustor.
2. Experimental set-up
The ONERA-LAERTE facility equipped with
the LAPCAT-II dual-mode ramjet/scramjet com-
bustor, its operating conditions and the measure-
ment procedures have been described in detail in
[10]. A schematic of the facility and combustor
sections are presented in Fig. 1(a)–(c). The refer-
ence position x = 0 m corresponds to the throat
of the Mach 2.0 nozzle. Experiments were per-
formed for total temperatures 1414 K < T0 <
1707 K, at an equivalence ratio of φ = 0.15, and
a total pressure of p0 = 0.40 ± 0.01 MPa. The
inflow air-heating was performed by H2 –air com-
bustion and oxygen (O2 ) replenishment. The flow
in the combustor is overexpanded and the transi-
tion from supersonic flow to subsonic flow occurs
in the downstream part of the combustor (in the
third combustor section) at x ≈ 0.75–0.80 m.
H2 was injected at sonic velocity both from the
upper and lower combustor walls at x = 0.20 m
through two flush-mounted 2.0 mm porthole in-
jectors. The operating conditions are presented in
Table 1 in terms of p0 and T0 , air- and fuel mass-
flows (mair and mH2 ), φ, inlet velocity, tempera-
ture and density (vin , Tin and ρ in ), as well as fuel
temperature and density (ρ H2 and TH2 ). The flow
and combustion diagnostics include measurements
of p0 and T0 upstream of the combustor, pres-
sure profiles along the combustor, Schlieren imag-
ing (12 kHz at 1 μs exposure time), and OH∗ visu-
alization (4 kHz at 4 μs exposure time) in the three
windows in Fig. 1(c).
The combined OH∗ chemiluminescence and
Schlieren images Fig. 1(d), provide information
about the flow physics and flame stabilization
mechanisms, and how these attributes change
with operating conditions. The shock-structure and
boundary layer separation are very sensitive to T0,
and appear to dominate the ignition and flame sta-
bilization mechanisms. For low T0 combustion oc-
curs in the low-speed region in the third combustor
section, at intermediate T0 either unsteady combus-
tion with the combustion fronts oscillating between
x ≈ 0.30 m and x ≈ 0.45 m or thermal choking is
observed, and at high T0 shock-induced combus-
tion is observed.
3. LES models, numerical methods and
computational set-up
The LES model is based on implicitly-filtered
transport equations for mass, momentum, energy
 A. Vincent-Randonnier et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37 (2019) 3703–3711 3705

Fig. 1. (a) General plan of the LAERTE facility, (b) photo of the LAPCAT-II combustor, (c) geometry of the LAPCAT-II
combustor, and (d) combined OH∗ chemiluminescence and Schlieren images of representative combustion situations at
T0 = 1697 K, Table 1.

Table 1
Characteristic properties of the LAPCAT-II combustor simulations.
Case p0 T0 mair mH2 φ vin Tin ρ in ρ H2 TH2 Combustion
[Pa] [K] [kg/s] [g/s] [m/s] [K] [kg/m3 ] [kg/m3 ] [K]
1 397740 1414 0.2931 1.53 0.15 686 1199 0.614 0.176 294 Subsonic
3a 401550 1505 0.2931 1.47 0.15 707 1276 0.583 0.173 297 Unsteady supersonic
3b 400900 1506 0.2931 1.49 0.15 708 1277 0.582 0.173 299 Thermal choking
4a 410220 1697 0.2931 1.40 0.15 751 1439 0.525 0.165 306 Shock-induced
4b 402550 1707 0.2931 1.37 0.15 754 1448 0.515 0.163 304 Shock-induced

and species mass-fractions, [11], together with ther-
mal and caloric equations-of-state and constitu-
tive equations. The thermal and caloric equations-
of-state are obtained under the presumption of a
mixture of thermally perfect gases using tabulated
formation enthalpies and specific heats. The consti-
tutive equations are those of a linear viscous mix-
ture with Fickian diffusion and Fourier heat con-
duction. The viscosity is calculated using Suther-
land’s law, whereas the thermal conductivity and
species diffusivities are computed from the viscos-
ity utilizing constant Prandtl and species Schmidt
numbers, respectively [12]. The unfiltered reaction
rates in the filtered species mass-fraction equations
results from Guldberg–Waage law of mass-action,
involving summation over all reactions, with reac-
tion rates obtained from Arrhenius rate laws [13].
The unresolved transport terms, or the subgrid
stress tensor and flux vectors, in the filtered trans-
port equations are closed by the mixed model [14].
The filtered reaction rates are modeled using the
Partially Stirred Reactor (PaSR) model [15], which
is a multi-scale model based on the observation
[16] that combustion often takes place in dispersed
fine-structure regions surrounded by low reaction
rates. The filtered reaction rates are estimated as
a weighted average of the fine-structure and sur-
rounding reaction rates using the reacting volume
fraction, γ ∗ . This model has been widely used in
combustion LES, and is validated for laboratory
combustors [17–18], afterburners [19], gas turbine
combustors [20], as well as scramjet combustors
[21].
The LES-PaSR model equations are solved
using a fully-explicit finite-volume code based
on the OpenFOAM C++ library, [22]. High-
order monotonicity-preserving reconstruction of
the convective fluxes and central differencing of
the diffusive fluxes [23], are combined with a total
variation diminishing based Runge–Kutta time in-
tegration scheme to result in a second-order accu-
rate algorithm. The chemical source terms in the
species transport equations are evaluated using an
operator-splitting approach together with a Rosen-
brock solver [24]. The code is density based, fully
compressible, and stability is imposed using com-
pact stencils and by enforcing conservation of ki-
netic energy with a Courant number limitation of
0.5.
The computational set-up is shown in Fig. 1(c),
and starts at the de Laval nozzle and ends
in a dump before the exhaust water-cooling.
3706 A. Vincent-Randonnier et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37 (2019) 3703–3711
Fig. 2. Comparison of (a) laminar flame speeds, su , (left axis) and adiabatic flame temperatures, T, (right axis) at T = 300 K
and p = 1 atm, and ignition delay times, τ ign , at 1 atm (b) and (c) 4 atm, for H2 –air mixtures. Legend: ( ) M1, [34], ( )
Z22, [29], ( ) J20, [32], ( ) D7, [33], ( ) K30, [31], and experimental data (black symbols) from [30–31,35–36].
Hex-dominant grids with ∼26 and ∼77 million
cells, refined along the walls and in the vicinity of
the injectors and the downstream plume are used.
The Index of Quality [25], was used to assess the
sensitivity of the solution to the grid, and reveals
that 87% and 92% of the kinetic energy was re-
solved, respectively, rendering both grids suitable
for LES. The lowest values of LESIQ occur in the
high-speed injector flow. Dirichlet boundary condi-
tions are used for all variables at the inlet, and at the
sonic H2 -injectors. Moreover, at the outlet, a wave-
transmissive boundary condition is used [26], given
a dump-pressure of 1.0 bar, and a no-slip subgrid
wall-model [27], is employed to model the near-wall
flow. The grid is adapted to the wall model, and uses
y+ values of between 40 and 100. The measured
wall temperature is used to provide an estimate of
the LES wall temperature of 800 K.
4. Hydrogen-air combustion chemistry
H2 –air combustion is here modeled using a
novel H2 –air reaction mechanism that uses the
H2 –O2 structure from the pathway centric mech-
anism in [28], together with three additional fuel
breakdown reactions. This result in the Z22 mech-
anism, using 9 species and 22 irreversible reactions
[29], see Supplementary material A. The mecha-
nism development was performed using the lam-
inar flame speed (su ), flame temperature (Tflame )
and ignition delay time (τ ign ) as targets. Addi-
tional effort during the mechanism development
was to create a mechanism that could match τ ign at
and below the crossover temperature interval, 800
K < T < 1200 K, where the ignition chemical kinet-
ics is complex and controversial, as are the ignition
phenomena [30]. The detailed mechanisms by Kon-
nov et al. [31], K30, and Jachimowski [32], J20, the
skeletal mechanism by Davidenko et al. [33], D7, as
well as the global mechanism by Marinov [34], M1,
are employed for comparisons together with exper-
imental data sets [30–31, 35–36].
Figure 2(a)–(c) compare predictions and exper-
imental data for su (left axis) and Tflame (right axis)
at 1 atm and 300 K, and τ ign at 1 atm and 4 atm,
respectively. Concerning su , Z22 is in reasonable
agreement with the experimental data and the pre-
dictions from K30, J20 and M1. For Tflame , all
mechanisms produce similar predictions, with the
largest deviations at around stoichio-metric condi-
tions. For τ i gn at 1 atm, Fig. 2b, all mechanisms per-
form similarly above 1000 K but with large devia-
tions below. The simplified chemistries of D7 and
M1, neglecting the H2 O2 and HO2 chemistry, re-
sult in inabilities to reproduce the bending of the
ignition curve within the crossover region, and with
the profiles for J20 and K30 predicting higher τ ign
when the temperature decreases, than Z22. At 4 atm
Fig. 2(c), the limitation in predictions of τ ign in the
crossover region and below for the different mecha-
nisms compared to Z22 is even more obvious, with
either over-or underpredictions of τ ign as compared
with the experimental data. In addition, Z22 is also
the only investigated mechanism able to satisfac-
torily reproduce the experimental data at the low-
est temperatures. Significant differences in τ ign be-
low ∼1000 K between the mechanisms will impact
flame anchoring and stabilization within the com-
bustor.
The reason for the discrepancies between the
detailed mechanism predictions and the experi-
mental data below ∼1000 K is under debate, with
the issue of non-homogeneous conditions being
one criticism of the current way of modeling τ ign at
low temperatures. Investigators [36], have observed
two distinct ignition phenomena depending on
the temperature conditions. Z22 is designed to
take the possibly non-homogeneous conditions
into account when using the standard model for
estimating τ ign but a secondary approach could be
to include a nonhomogeneous condition into τ ign
when simulating current detailed mechanisms.
5. Results and discussion
A first appraisal of combustion in the
LAPCAT-II combustor is provided in Fig. 3
which presents experimental combustion images
 A. Vincent-Randonnier et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37 (2019) 3703–3711
Fig. 3. Experimental flame images and volumetric renderings of thermal radiation heat-flux from LES for (a) Case 1
(T0 = 1414 K), (b) Case 3a (T0 = 1505 K) and (c) Case 4a (T0 = 1697 K).
[10], and volumetric renderings of the thermal ra-
diation heat-flux from the LES of Cases 1, 3a and
4a. The thermal radiation heat-flux is defined as
q(x ) = τ εσ T 4 Ff →x in which τ is the atmospheric
transmissivity, σ the Stefan–Boltzman constant, ε
the emissivity, T the flame temperature and Ff –x the
view factor. As evident from Table 1, p0 , mair , φ are
the same for all cases, resulting in gradually increas-
ing inflow axial velocities, vx , and temperatures,
Tin , with increasing T0 . For Case 1 (at T0 = 1414 K)
both the experimental combustion image and the
LES volumetric rendering show that combustion
starts in the subsonic region in the third combustor
section, just after the 1° to 3° transition (in the
second window) at 0.75 < x < 0.80 m. For Case
3a (at T0 = 1505 K) the LES volumetric rendering
and the experimental combustion image reveal that
combustion occurs much earlier, towards the end
of the first (straight) combustor section or in the
beginning of the second combustor section (first
window). Experiments suggests a combustion front
oscillating between 0.30 m < x < 0.45 m, whereas
LES predicts that the onset of combustion is more
gradual, oscillating between 0.28 m < x < 0.40 m
at ∼60 Hz, together with pockets of more intense
combustion occurring intermittently. For Case
4a (at T0 = 1697 K) both LES and experiments
shows that combustion takes place even earlier:
The OH∗ and Schlieren images of Fig. 1(d) shows
that combustion starts abruptly at x ≈ 0.26 m
due to shock-induced ignition, whereas the LES
predictions suggest that the combustion inception
appears more complicated, driven by shock-
induced ignition, with intermittent combustion
occurring also in front of the injectors, beneath
the bow-shocks and partially in the horseshoe
vortices surrounding the jets. All LES suggests
that the upper and lower flame branches alternate
3707
from being attached to the upper and lower walls,
respectively, with a frequency of ∼50 Hz.
Figure 4 presents perspective views of the flow-
field in the LAPCAT-II combustor for (a) Case 1,
(b) Case 3a and (c) Case 4a in terms of iso-surfaces
of the second invariant of the velocity-gradient
tensor, λ2 [37], colored by the H2 mass-fraction,
YH2 , and the pressure, p, and volumetric render-
ings of the temperature, T. For all cases, the bound-
ary layer flow structures (longitudinal and hairpin
vortices, and streaks) develop halfway down the
nozzle, further developing along the first combus-
tor section until the fuel-injectors are reached. In
front of each fuel-inject-or a bow-shock is formed
(at x ≈ 0.198 m), and in front of this a Lambda
shock is formed (at x ≈ 0.193 m). A horseshoe vor-
tex develops in the recirculation region between the
bow- and Lambda shocks as a result of the flow
stagnation and boundary-layer separation. This
vortex traverses downstream, parallel to the fuel-
rich plumes from the injectors.
For Case 1 most of the injected H2 remains
within the plumes as they are convected down-
stream, and only a small fraction of H2 is engulfed
in the horseshoe vortices. The H2 -rich plumes
consist of a counter-rotating vortex pair along
the average trajectory of each H2 -plume, originat-
ing at the leading edges of the jet shear-layers,
and jet shear-layer vortices enfolding the jets, and
developing due to Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities
in the jet-shear layers. Near the injectors, these
flow structures typically appear as incoherent S-
shaped side vortex arms and vortex rollers, but
downstream they organize into full -shaped vor-
tex loops. Along the second and third combus-
tor sections the vorticity field gradually weaken,
whilst the H2 -plumes spread across the combustor
cross-section. The boundary layers separate about
3708 A. Vincent-Randonnier et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37 (2019) 3703–3711

Fig. 4. Instantaneous distributions of the second invariant of the velocity gradient tensor, λ2 , colored by the H2 mass
fraction, YH2 , in green, iso-surfaces of the pressure, p, in magenta, and volumetric renderings of the temperature, T, in a
color scale from black through red, orange, yellow to white for (a) Case 1 (T0 = 1414 K), (b) Case 3a (T0 = 1505 K) and
(c) Case 4a (T0 = 1697 K). In (d) and (e), respectively, details of Case 3a and Case 4a are shown.

halfway down the third combustor section, at 0.75
m < x < 0.80 m, resulting in subsonic flow re-
gions near the upper and lower walls, promoting
ignition, flame stabilization and turbulent combus-
tion. These regions occur at different locations on
the two walls, resulting in an asymmetry manifested
as a thicker combustion zone along the upper or
lower wall, intermittently switching to the other
wall.
For Case 3a the approach flow to the fuel in-
jectors is very similar to that of Case 1 but with
a marginally thinner boundary layer due to the
higher inflow velocity. Similar flow structures as
observed for Case 1 also develop downstream of
each injector, i.e., a counter-rotating vortex pair,
jet shear-layer vortices, S-shaped side vortex arms,
spanwise vortex rollers and -shaped vortex loops.
The higher T0 facilitate ignition Fig. 2(b) and (c),
resulting in combustion starting already towards
the end of the first combustor section. Combus-
tion occurs initially along the sides of the H2 -
plumes, gradually widening towards the center to
cover the full combustor width downstream of the
first combustor section. Further downstream, com-
bustion widens from the boundary layer to gradu-
ally cover almost the full combustor height in the
third and fourth combustor sections. Again, asym-
metry in the combustion propagation is observed,
resulting in a thicker combustion zone along one
of the walls, but periodically switching to the other
wall. Combustion seems to oscillate also in the ax-
ial direction, with the flame front moving between
x ≈ 0.28 m and 0.40 m with a frequency of ∼60 Hz.
Pockets of more intense combustion are also ob-
served intermittently. Due to the volumetric expan-
sion and temperature increase, the vortical struc-
tures thicken in the high-temperature combustion
region modifying the mixing rates.
In Case 4a the flow is again very similar to
that of Cases 1 and 3a but with an even thinner
boundary layer due to the higher inflow velocity.
The flow is dominated by the H2 -plumes, and their
embedded counter-rotating vortex pairs, jet shear-
layer vortices, S-shaped side vortex arms, span-
wise vortex rollers and vortex loops. Due to the
higher inflow temperature, ignition takes place eas-
ier Fig. 2(b) and (c), resulting in that combustion
occurs earlier, and simultaneously across the full
combustor width. Due to the volumetric expan-
sion and temperature increase, the vortical struc-
tures thicken in the combustion region, resulting in
a different vorticity field in the first two combus-
tor sections. Asymmetry in the combustion prop-
agation is again observed similar to Case 3a. No
axial combustion oscillations are observed for this
case. Combustion, however, occurs intermittently
already in the recirculation region upsteam of the
injectors.
Figure 5 shows numerical Schlieren images
(based on the derivative of the refractive index)
combined with OH mass-fraction, YOH , images to
match the experimental images in Figs. 1(d) for
Cases 3a and 4a. From these figures, the upstream
shock-train and the bow- and Lambda shocks are
visible, as well as the barrel-shocks, H2 -plumes and
reflected shocks downstream of injection. A mix-
ing region occurs downstream of the fuel injectors,
the length of which appears strongly dependent on
the total temperature, with Case 1 (not shown) pre-
senting by far the longest mixing region and Case
4a the shortest. The length of the mixing region
is also the particular feature that departs the most
between the experiments and the LES. There can
be many reasons for this, including the accuracy of
the reaction mechanism Fig. 2, wall-surface rough-
ness, the accuracy of the LES turbulence models,
 A. Vincent-Randonnier et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37 (2019) 3703–3711 3709

Fig. 5. Combined numerical Schlieren and OH image for (a) Case 3a and (b) Case 3a.

Fig. 6. (a) Time-averaged wall-pressures, pw , along the lower combustor wall and (b) cross-sectional averaged Mach
number, Ma, and normalized heat-release, Q/Qmax , and streamthrust, s/snozzle . Legend: (×), (◦) and ( ) experimental data
for Cases 1, 3a and 4a, respectively, and LES predictions for ( ), ( ) and ( ) Cases 1, 3a and 4a, respectively, on the
26 million cell grid. In (b) solid lines denote Ma, dotted lines denote Q/Qmax and dashed lines denote s/snozzle .

wall-models and combustion models, and the
accuracy of the characterization of the operating
conditions.
Based on Figs. 4 and 5 ignition occurs in the
low-speed region in the third combustor section for
Case 1, whereas for Case 4a combustion occurs as
a consequence of shock-induced ignition of both
the H2 –air mixture in the main fuels plumes and
in the horseshoe-vortex systems. For Case 3a com-
bustion follows from a combination of turbulent
and coherent structure mixing, and gradual heating
from multiple reflected shocks resulting in unsteady
combustion.
Figure 6(a) and (b) shows profiles of the wall-
pressure, pw , from the experiments and the LES,
and cross-sectional averaged profiles of the Mach
number, Ma, normalized heat-release, Q/Qmax , and
streamthrust, s/snozzle , in which s = p + 12 ρv2x . Re-
garding pw in Fig. 6(a) we notice that the LES’ cap-
tures the trends of the experiments well, but lack
somewhat in detail. For Case 1 pw increases slightly
too early, indicating too early combustion, possi-
bly due to premature flow separation in the third
combustor section. For Cases 3a and 4a both LES’
and experiments reveal a considerable increase in
pw due to combustion. For Case 4a both the exper-
iments and LES’ expose a peak in pw at x ≈ 0.26.
While the experimental pw profiles are nearly con-
stant along the second combustor section, the LES’
pw profiles decrease linearly along the second com-
bustor section. This difference may be explained by
a small step in the combustor at x ≈ 0.60 m not
included in the computational configuration. The
pressure recovery for x > 0.80 m is reasonably well
captured by all LES. Comparison between mea-
sured and predicted T0 and p0 at x ≈ 0.10 m shows
excellent agreement for all cases indicating that the
approach flow is well captured.
For the cross-sectional averaged profiles in Fig.
6(b) we find that Q/Qmax occur in different locations
for the different cases: For Case 1 Q/Qmax occurs in
the third (subsonic) combustor section, whilst for
Cases 3a and 4a, Q/Qmax occur in the second (su-
personic) combustor section, but with different ax-
ial distributions. Ma remains almost constant un-
til Q/Qmax increases due to combustion after which
Ma gradually increase for Cases 3a and 4a pend-
ing the fourth combustor section is reached, after
which Ma decreases towards Ma ≈ 0.8. Moreover,
s/snozzle is nearly constant through the combustor
for Case 1 but increases along the fourth combus-
tor section. For Cases 3a and 4a a small increase in
s/snozzle is observed along the second and third com-
bustor sections, after which s/snozzle increase along
the fourth combustor section.
5. Summary and concluding remarks
This paper describes a combined experimen-
tal and computational study of a supersonic flow
and hydrogen–air combustion in the LAPCAT-II
dual mode ramjet/scramjet combustor. The com-
bustor consists of four sections with gradually in-
creasing cross-sectional area, and experiments and
LES have been performed for total temperatures
of 1414 K < T0 < 1707 K at a total pressure
of p0 = 0.40 MPa and an equivalence ratio of
3710 A. Vincent-Randonnier et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37 (2019) 3703–3711
φ = 0.15. The diagnostics include reference mea-
surements of p0 and T0 upstream of the com-
bustor, wall-pressures at the combustor walls, and
Schlieren and OH∗ chemiluminescence imaging.
The LES set-up consists of the whole combustor
and the LES are performed using a compressible
finite-rate chemistry LES model.
For all cases, excellent agreement between pre-
dicted and measured reference values of p0 and T0
is found, ascertaining mutual agreement between
the experiments and LES. For this p0 the com-
bustor is overexpanded, and both the LES and
experiments show that transition from supersonic
to subsonic occur at the beginning of the fourth
(and last) combustor section. By sweeping T0 dif-
ferent flow and combustion states are observed: For
T0 = 1414 K combustion occurs only in the sep-
arated region far downstream. For T0 = 1505 K
combustion starts between the first and second
combustor sections, with experiments showing an
abrupt combustion front and LES a less sharp but
longitudinally oscillating combustion front. For
T0 = 1697 K combustion starts even earlier, with
the LES predictions showing a somewhat to early,
intermittent, combustion inception compared to
the experimental data. Matching wall-pressure in-
creases due to combustion are observed for the LES
and the experiments. The LES and experiments
both reveal a strong sensitivity of the combustor to
variations in T0 reminiscent to turbulent supersonic
hydrogen-air combustion. The LES results and the
OH∗ and Schlieren images are further utilized to
describe the flow, mixing, self-ignition and turbu-
lent combustion, and the influence of increasing T0 .
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the support of ON-
ERA and FOI, respectively; VS was also sup-
ported by the Grant of the Ministry of Education
and Science of the Russian Federation (Contract
no. 14.G39.31.0001 of 13.02.2017). The assistance
from N. Wikström is acknowledged.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this ar-
ticle can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.
1016/j.proci.2018.05.127.
References
[1] D. Andreadis, Ind. Phys. 10 (2004) 24.
[2] A. Ben-Yakar, R.K. Hanson, Proc. Combust. Inst. 27
(2001) 2173–2180.
[3] T. Sunami, P. Magré, A. Bresson, F. Grisch,
M. Orain, M. Kodera, AIAA 2005 (2005) 3304.
[4] S.J. Laurence, S. Karl, J. Martinez Schramm,
K. Hannemann, J. Fluid Mech. 772 (2013) 85–120.
[5] D.J. Micka, J.F. Driscoll, Proc. Combust. Inst. 32
(2009) 2397–2404.
[6] H. Koo, P. Donde, V. Raman, Proc. Combust. Inst.
33 (2011) 2203–2210.
[7] J.A. Fulton, J.R. Edwards, H.A. Hassan, et al., J.
Prop. Power 30 (2014) 558–575.
[8] A. Saghafian, L. Shunn, D. Philips, F. Ham, Proc.
Combust. Inst. 35 (2015) 2163–2172.
[9] K. Nordin-Bates, C. Fureby, S. Karl, K. Hanne-
mann, Proc. Combust. Inst. 36 (2017) 2893–2900.
[10] A. Vincent-Radonnier, Y. Moule, M. Ferrier, AIAA
2014 (2014) 2931.
[11] T. Echekki, E. Mastorakos, Turbulent Combustion
Modeling: Advances, New Trends and Perspectives,
Springer, Netherlands, 2011.
[12] E. Giacomazzi, F.P. Picchia, N. Arciacono, in: Pro-
ceedings of the Thirtieth Italian Meeting on Com-
bustion, Ischia, Italy, 2007.
[13] S. Menon, C. Fureby, Encyclopedia of Aerospace En-
gineering, in: R. Blockley, W. Shyy (Eds.), John Wiley
& Sons, 2010.
[14] R. Bensow, C. Fureby, J. Turbul. 8 (54) (2007) 1–17.
[15] V Sabelnikov, C. Fureby, Combut. Flame 160 (2013)
83–96.
[16] M. Tanahashi, M. Fujimura, T. Miyauchi, Proc.
Combust. Inst. 28 (2000) 529–535.
[17] K-J. Nogenmyr, C. Fureby, X.-S. Bai, P. Petersson,
M. Linné, Combut. Flame 156 (2009) 25–36.
[18] E. Fedina, C. Fureby, J. Turbul. 12 (24) (2011) 1–20.
[19] N. Zettervall, K. Nordin-Bates, E. Heimdal-Nilsson,
C. Fureby, Combut. Flame 179 (2015) 1–22.
[20] E. Fedina, C. Fureby, G. Bulat, W. Maier, Flow Tur-
bul. Combut. 99 (2017) 385–409.
[21] M. Chapuis, E. Fedina, C. Fureby, K. Hannemann,
S. Karl, J. Martinez Schramm, Proc. Combust. Inst.
34 (2012) 2101–2109.
[22] H.G. Weller, G. Tabor, H. Jasak, C. Fureby, Comput.
Phys. 12 (1997) 620–631.
[23] D. Drikakis, C. Fureby, F.F. Grinstein,
M. Liefendahl, Implicit Large Eddy Simulation:
Computing Turbulent Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge
University Press, 2007, p. 94.
[24] E. Hairer, G. Wanner, Solving Ordinary Differential
Equations, II: Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Prob-
lems, 2nd Ed, Springer Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg,
1996.
[25] I. Celik, Z.N. Cehreli, I. Yavuz, ASME J. Fluids Eng.
127 (2005) 949–958.
[26] T.J. Poinsot, S.K. Lele, J. Comput. Phys. 101 (1992)
104–129.
[27] C. Fureby, Whither Turbulence and Big Data for the
21st Century, Springer Verlag, 2015, p. 375.
[28] A. Larsson, N. Zettervall, T. Hurtig, et al., Energy
Fuels 31 (2017) 1904–1926.
[29] N. Zettervall, C. Fureby, AIAA (2018) 2018-1146.
[30] D.J. Beerer, V.G. McDonell, J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power
130 (2008) 051507.
[31] V.A. Alekseev, M. Christensen, A.A. Konnov, Com-
but. Flame 162 (2015) 1884–1898.
[32] C.A. Jachimowski, NASA Technical Paper 2791,
1988.
[33] D.M. Davidenko, I. Gökalp, E. Dufour, P. Magre,
AIAA 2003 (2003) 7003.
[34] N.M. Marinov, C.K. Westbrook, W.J. Pitz, in: Pro-
ceeding of the Eighth International Symposium
on Transport Properties, San Fransisco, CA, USA,
1995.
 A. Vincent-Randonnier et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 37 (2019) 3703–3711 3711

[35] R. Blumenthal, Experimentelle Untersuchung und
Numerische Simulation der Selbstzuendung von
Kraftstoff/Luft-Gemischen im Stosswellenrohr unter
Beruecksichtigung stroemungs-mechanischer Ein-
fluesse Doctoral Thesis, Institut für Allgemeine
Mechanik, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1996.
[36] S. Samuelsen, V. McDonell, M. Greene, D. Beerer,
Correlation of Ignition Delay with Natural Gas and
IGCC type Fuels, DOE Award Number: DE-FC26-
02NT41431, 2006.
[37] J. Jeong, F. Hussain, W. Shoppa, J. Kim, J. Fluid
Mech. 332 (1997) 185–214.