Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Q1, QC, TJ, TA

Classified by OpenAIRE into

arxiv: Physics::Fluid Dynamics, Astrophysics::High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena, High Energy Physics::Experiment
A rectangular open cavity with upstream dual injectors at a freestream Mach number of 1.9 was investigated experimentally. To evaluate the effect of the distance between the jets, the flow characteristics were investigated using the high-speed schlieren photography, particle image velocimetry, and surface oil flow techniques. The dual jet distances of 18 and 54 mm were used. Unstable flow occurs over the cavity in all cases and is not improved by changing the distance between the dual jets. Although the distance between the dual jets does not influence the flow stability, the flow field varies decidedly depending on the dual jets distance. The enhancement of air mixing depends on the distance between the jets. A long dual jets distance was found to yield better mixing characteristics within the cavity than a short one. When the jets are further apart, the mainstream between two counter-rotating vortex pairs behind the jets flows strongly into the cavity because of the increased blow-down occurring between the vortex pairs. Additionally, a counterflow with a low velocity magnitude occurs behind the jets. Hence, mixing is enhanced within the cavity by effects of the opposed flow. When the jet pairs are closer to each other, the counter-rotating vortex pairs are in contact; as a result, the blow-down effect does not occur between them. The flow drawn into the cavity from the mainstream is supplied from the sides of the test section into the cavity.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Drummond, J.P., Bouchez, M., McClinton, C.R., 2006. Overview of NATO background on scramjet technology. NASA Techdoc 20060020216.
    • 2. Lee, S.-H., 2006. Characteristics of dual transverse injection in scramjet combustor, Part 1: Mixing. J. Propul. Power 22(5), 1012-1019.
    • 3. Jacobsen, L.S., Schetz, J.A., Ng, W.F., 2000. Flowfield near a multiport injector array in a supersonic flow. J. Propul. Power 16(2), 216-226.
    • 4. Cox-Stouffer, S.K., Gruber, M.R., 1999. Effects of injector yaw on mixing characteristics of aerodynamic ramp injectors. AIAA Paper 99-0086.
    • 5. Pudsey, A.S., Boyce, R.R. 2010. Numerical investigation of transverse jets through multiport injector arrays in a supersonic crossflow. J. Propul. Power 26(6), 1225-1236.
    • 6. Ming-bo, S., Jing, L., Hai-yan, W., Jian-han, L., Wei-dong, L., Zhen-guo, W., 2011. Flow patterns and mixing characteristics of gaseous fuel multiple injections in a non-reacting supersonic combustor. Heat Mass Transfer 47, 1499-1516.
    • 7. Yang, I., Lee, Y.J., Lee, K.J., Park, C., 2013. Effect of combustor configuration on flow and combustion in a scramjet engine. J. Propul. Power 29(3), 751-755.
    • 8. Yu, K., Wilson, K.J., Smith, R.A., Schadow, K.C., 1998. Experimental investigation on dual-purpose cavity in supersonic reacting flows. AIAA Paper 98-0723.
    • 9. Gruber, M.R., Donbar, J.M., Carter, C.D., Hsu, K.-Y., 2004. Mixing and combustion studies using cavity-based flameholders in a supersonic flow. J. Propul. Power 20(5), 769-778.
    • 10. Sakamoto, K., Matsunaga, K., Fujii, K., Tamura, Y., 1995. Experimental investigation of supersonic internal cavity flows. AIAA Paper 95-2213.
    • 11. Kang, S.H., Lee, J.Y., Yang, S.S., Choi, B., 2012. Effects of flameholder configurations on combustion in scramjet engines. J. Propul. Power 28(4), 739-746.
    • 12. Yeom, H.W., Seo, B.G., Sung, H.G., 2013. Numerical analysis of scramjet engine with intake sidewalls and cavity flameholder. AIAA journal 51(7), 1566-1575.
    • 13. Ghodke, C.D., Pranatharthikaran, J., Retaureau, G.J., Menon, S., 2011. Numerical and experimental studies of flame stability in a cavity stabilized hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet. AIAA Paper 2011-2365.
    • 14. Tatman, B.J., Rockwell, R.D., Goyne, C.P., McDaniel, J.C., Donohue, J.M., 2013. Experimental study of vitiation effects on flameholding in a cavity flameholder. J. Propul. Power 29(2), 417-423.
    • 15. Rasmussen, C.C., Driscoll, J.F., Carter, C.D., Hsu K.-Y., 2005. Characteristics of cavity-stabilized flames in a supersonic flow. J. Propul. Power 21(4), 765-768.
    • 16. Lada, C., Kontis, K., 2010. Experimental studies on transitional and closed cavity configurations including flow control. J. Aircraft 47(2), 723-730.
    • 17. Lada, C., Kontis, K., 2011. Experimental studies of open cavity configurations at transonic speeds with flow control. J. Aircraft 48(2), 719-724.
    • 18. Yu, K.H., Wilson, K.J., Schadow, K.C., 2001. Effect of flame-holding cavities on supersonic-combustion performance. J. Propul. Power 17(6), 1287-1295.
    • 19. Gruber, M.R., Baurle, R.A., Mathur, T., Hsu, K.-Y., 2001. Fundamental studies of cavity-based flameholder concepts for supersonic combustors. J. Propul. Power 17, 146-153.
    • 20. Lawson, S.J., Barakos, G.N., 2011. Review of numerical simulations for high-speed, turbulent cavity flows. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47, 186-216.
    • 21. Li, W., Nonomura, T., Oyama, A., Fujii, K., 2013. Feedback mechanism in supersonic laminar cavity flows. AIAA Journal 51 (1) 253-257.
    • 22. Ukai, T., Zare-Behtash, H., Erdem, E., Lo, K.H., Kontis, K., 2014. Effectiveness of jet location on mixing characteristics inside a cavity in supersonic flow. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 54, 59-67.
    • 23. Kontis, K., An, R., Zare-Behtash, H., Kounadis, D., 2008. Head-on collision of shock wave induced vortices with solid and perforated walls. Phys. Fluids 20, 1-17.
    • 24. Zare-Behtash, H., Gongora-Orozco, N., Kontis, K., 2011. Effect of primary jet geometry on ejector performance: A cold-flow investigation. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 32, 596-607.
    • 25. Erfani, R., Zare-Behtash, H., Kontis, K., 2012. Influence of shock wave propagation on dielectric barrier discharge plasma actuator performance. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 45, 225201.
    • 26. Kontis, K., Lada, C., Zare-Behtash, H., 2008. Effect of dimples on glancing shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions. Shock Waves 17(5), 323-335.
    • 27. Erdem, E., Saravanan, S., Lin, J., Kontis, K., 2012. Experimental investigation of transverse injection flowfield at Mach 5 and the influence of impinging shock wave. AIAA Paper 2012-5800.
    • 28. Erfani, R., Zare-Behtash, H., Kontis, K., 2012. Plasma actuator: influence of dielectric surface temperature. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 42, 258-264.
    • 29. Zare-Behtash, H., Kontis, K., Gongora-Orozco, N., 2008. Experimental investigations of compressible vortex loops. Phys. Fluids 20, 126105.
    • 30. Melling, A., 1997. Tracer particles and seeding for particle image velocimetry. Meas. Sci. Technol. 8, 1406-1416.
    • 31. Erdem, E., Saravanan, S., Kontis, K., 2012. Air, carbon dioxide and helium transverse sonic jets in Mach 5 cross flow. 9th International ERCOFTAC Symposium on Engineering Turbulence Modelling and Measurements.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article