arxiv: 2605.05874 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Recognition: unknown

Comparative Numerical Study of Film Cooling Strategies for Thermal Protection of a Kerosene-Fueled Oblique Detonation Combustor

Jianghong Li , Songbai Yao , Wenwu Zhang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 06:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

keywords film coolingoblique detonation enginethermal protectionkerosene combustormist coolinghypersonic propulsionnumerical simulationdetonation wave

0 comments

The pith

Mist cooling provides the best balance of thermal protection and propulsion performance for kerosene-fueled oblique detonation combustors at 1-3% coolant mass ratios.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates three film cooling strategies—air, gaseous-kerosene, and liquid-kerosene mist—for protecting the walls of an oblique detonation engine combustor under Mach 10 flight conditions. It aims to show that these methods can reduce extreme thermal loads while preserving the stable structure of the oblique detonation wave. A sympathetic reader would care because effective cooling could make hypersonic detonation engines more practical by preventing material failure without sacrificing efficiency. The study finds that mist cooling excels at coolant ratios of 1% to 3% due to smoother temperature distributions from droplet evaporation, while gaseous kerosene performs better at higher levels with continuous coverage. Air cooling causes more disturbances to the wave system and larger performance penalties.

Core claim

Numerical results indicate that all cooling strategies maintain stable oblique detonation propagation and the canonical wave-system structure. Fuel-based cooling methods cause milder disturbances near the initiation region and triple point compared to air cooling. Liquid-kerosene mist cooling achieves a smoother near-wall temperature field through enhanced two-phase mixing and phase-change heat absorption, offering the best balance of thermal protection and propulsion performance at coolant mass ratios of 1%-3%. Gaseous-kerosene film cooling becomes preferable at higher injection levels due to improved wall coverage continuity. All methods substantially lower near-wall thermal loads.

What carries the argument

Comparative three-dimensional CFD simulations of film cooling injection through discrete holes, incorporating turbulence modeling, finite-rate chemistry, and two-phase droplet dynamics to evaluate effects on detonation wave structure and wall heat transfer.

If this is right

Air film cooling generates stronger near-wall disturbances that enhance downstream wave interactions and increase propulsion penalties.
Gaseous-kerosene cooling exhibits periodic thermal responses tied to the discrete hole arrangement.
Mist cooling delivers smoother temperature control via phase-change effects.
Stable detonation is preserved across all strategies within the studied range.
Fuel-based cooling better maintains the global detonation structure than air cooling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

These findings could guide selection of coolant type based on expected mass flow rates in ODE designs.
The two-phase effects in mist cooling might be optimized by adjusting droplet size for specific flight conditions.
Similar cooling approaches may apply to other detonation-based or scramjet combustors facing high heat fluxes.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical models for turbulence, chemistry, and droplet evaporation accurately predict the near-wall flow and heat transfer without introducing errors that reverse the performance ranking of the cooling strategies.

What would settle it

An experiment measuring actual wall temperatures and detonation wave positions in a similar kerosene ODE setup that shows mist cooling causing greater propulsion loss or higher wall temperatures than gaseous kerosene at 1-3% coolant ratios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05874 by Jianghong Li, Songbai Yao, Wenwu Zhang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Schematic of the oblique detonation engine configuration. The operating condition parameters used in this study are adopted from Ref. [17]. Air enters the inlet and is compressed through the inlet/isolator system before reaching the combustor. The fuel is kerosene, represented by the surrogate formula C10H10. For all cases, the incoming stream is prescribed as a spatially uniform, stoichiometric kerosene–a… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Comparison between the curve-fitted predicted detonation cell sizes and experimental data [28]. The computation domain is uniformly meshed and a mesh sensitivity analysis is conducted to assess grid independence, employing three different mesh sizes: 30 μm, 40 μm, and 50 μm view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Thermal protection remains a critical challenge for oblique detonation engines (ODEs) operating under hypersonic conditions due to the extreme heat release and compact combustor geometry associated with oblique detonation waves (ODWs). In the present study, the effectiveness of film cooling for a kerosene-air ODE combustor is numerically investigated under a flight Mach number of 10 and an altitude of 15 km. Three active cooling strategies are considered, including air film cooling, gaseous-kerosene film cooling, and liquid-kerosene mist cooling. The results show that all cooling strategies preserve stable oblique-detonation propagation and maintain the canonical wave-system structure within the investigated operating range. Air cooling produces stronger disturbances near the initiation region and triple point, resulting in enhanced downstream wave interactions and larger propulsion penalties. In contrast, fuel-based cooling induces milder disturbances and better preserves the global detonation structure. All cooling methods substantially reduce the near-wall thermal load, although their cooling characteristics differ significantly. Gaseous-kerosene film cooling exhibits a spatially periodic near-wall thermal response associated with the discrete cooling hole arrangement, while liquid-kerosene mist cooling produces a smoother near-wall temperature distribution due to enhanced two-phase mixing and phase-change heat absorption. Among the investigated strategies, mist cooling provides the best overall balance between thermal protection and propulsion performance at coolant mass ratios of 1%-3%, whereas gaseous-kerosene film cooling becomes advantageous at higher injection levels due to improved wall coverage continuity. The present results demonstrate the feasibility and potential of fuel-based film cooling for thermal management in hypersonic ODE combustors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a straightforward CFD comparison showing mist cooling edges out the others at low coolant ratios for thermal protection in a Mach-10 kerosene ODE, with gaseous kerosene better at higher ratios.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that liquid-kerosene mist cooling gives the best balance of wall temperature reduction and minimal propulsion penalty at coolant mass ratios of 1-3 percent, while gaseous-kerosene film cooling pulls ahead at higher ratios because it maintains more continuous coverage. All three strategies keep the oblique detonation wave stable and preserve the basic wave structure, with fuel-based options causing less disruption near the initiation region and triple point than air cooling does. Mist cooling also produces smoother near-wall temperatures thanks to evaporation and two-phase effects. The parametric sweeps on coolant ratio are the practical part of the work and the trends are reported clearly enough to follow. What is new is the side-by-side ranking of these specific strategies inside a kerosene-fueled ODE geometry at Mach 10 conditions; earlier studies have looked at film cooling in other combustors but not this direct comparison with the detonation-wave interactions tracked. The paper does a reasonable job of linking local cooling performance to global metrics like wave stability and overall engine behavior. The soft spot is the absence of any mesh-convergence data, turbulence-model validation, or checks on the finite-rate chemistry and droplet-evaporation submodels. Without those, the exact ordering of the three strategies rests on unverified numerical accuracy, even though the qualitative picture looks plausible and the authors note the modeling limits. A different closure or finer grid could shift the quantitative margins. This paper is for engineers and researchers working on thermal management in hypersonic detonation propulsion. A reader who needs relative performance numbers for cooling choices in ODE combustors will get usable starting points, though they will still run their own verification. It deserves peer review so the community can examine the numerics and test whether the rankings hold under tighter validation.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a comparative CFD study of three film-cooling strategies (air film, gaseous-kerosene film, and liquid-kerosene mist) for thermal protection of a kerosene-fueled oblique detonation combustor at flight Mach 10 and 15 km altitude. All strategies are shown to preserve stable oblique detonation wave (ODW) propagation and the canonical wave-system structure; air cooling induces stronger near-wall disturbances and larger propulsion penalties, while fuel-based cooling is milder. Mist cooling yields the smoothest near-wall temperature field and the best combined thermal-protection/propulsion performance at coolant mass ratios of 1–3 %, whereas gaseous kerosene becomes preferable at higher injection rates due to improved wall-coverage continuity.

Significance. If the relative rankings hold under verified modeling, the work supplies practical design guidance for active thermal management in hypersonic ODE combustors by quantifying trade-offs between wall-heat-flux reduction and preservation of detonation structure and net thrust. The parametric sweep over coolant mass ratio and the explicit comparison of disturbance levels at the initiation region and triple point are useful contributions to the sparse literature on film cooling inside detonation engines.

major comments (3)

[Numerical Methods] Numerical Methods section: no mesh-convergence or grid-independence study is reported. Because the central comparative claim rests on quantitative differences in near-wall heat flux, boundary-layer thickness, and ODW triple-point location, the absence of demonstrated grid convergence leaves open the possibility that the reported performance ordering is an artifact of insufficient near-wall resolution.
[Results] Results section (mist-cooling cases): the Lagrangian droplet model (evaporation rate constants, initial size distribution, and two-phase momentum/heat coupling) is not validated against any reference data for kerosene mist in high-speed reacting flows. This modeling choice is load-bearing for the assertion that mist cooling provides superior phase-change heat absorption and smoother wall temperatures at 1–3 % mass ratio.
[Results] Results section (all cases): turbulence closure and finite-rate chemistry mechanism are not validated against experimental detonation or film-cooling data at comparable Mach numbers. Without such checks, the claim that gaseous-kerosene cooling becomes advantageous at higher mass ratios due to “improved wall coverage continuity” cannot be separated from possible model-specific biases in mixing and heat-transfer prediction.

minor comments (2)

[Figures and text] Figure captions and text inconsistently refer to “coolant mass ratio” without an explicit definition (e.g., coolant-to-mainstream mass-flow ratio or local mass fraction).
[Abstract] The abstract states that “all cooling methods substantially reduce the near-wall thermal load” but provides no quantitative reduction percentages or reference to the uncooled baseline values shown in the figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects of numerical rigor that we will address in the revision. We provide point-by-point responses below and commit to incorporating the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Numerical Methods] Numerical Methods section: no mesh-convergence or grid-independence study is reported. Because the central comparative claim rests on quantitative differences in near-wall heat flux, boundary-layer thickness, and ODW triple-point location, the absence of demonstrated grid convergence leaves open the possibility that the reported performance ordering is an artifact of insufficient near-wall resolution.

Authors: We agree that a grid-convergence study is required to substantiate the quantitative comparisons. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection to Numerical Methods that presents results from three successively refined meshes (coarse, medium, and fine). We will demonstrate convergence of wall heat flux, boundary-layer thickness, and ODW triple-point location, and confirm that the relative performance ranking among the three cooling strategies remains unchanged. Appropriate figures and tabulated error metrics will be included. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results section (mist-cooling cases): the Lagrangian droplet model (evaporation rate constants, initial size distribution, and two-phase momentum/heat coupling) is not validated against any reference data for kerosene mist in high-speed reacting flows. This modeling choice is load-bearing for the assertion that mist cooling provides superior phase-change heat absorption and smoother wall temperatures at 1–3 % mass ratio.

Authors: We acknowledge the absence of explicit validation for the Lagrangian model under the exact conditions of the study. In the revision we will add a validation subsection that compares the implemented evaporation model and droplet dispersion against available experimental data for kerosene sprays in supersonic flows. We will also include a brief sensitivity study on evaporation constants and initial droplet size to show that the reported advantages of mist cooling at low mass ratios are robust. These additions will directly support the phase-change heat-absorption claim. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results section (all cases): turbulence closure and finite-rate chemistry mechanism are not validated against experimental detonation or film-cooling data at comparable Mach numbers. Without such checks, the claim that gaseous-kerosene cooling becomes advantageous at higher mass ratios due to “improved wall coverage continuity” cannot be separated from possible model-specific biases in mixing and heat-transfer prediction.

Authors: We recognize that validation of the turbulence model and chemical mechanism strengthens the interpretation of the cooling-strategy comparisons. In the revised manuscript we will add comparisons of the baseline (no-cooling) detonation structure—wave angle, pressure rise, and initiation location—against published experimental and high-fidelity numerical data for oblique detonations at Mach numbers near 10. For turbulence closure we will reference and briefly discuss consistency with supersonic film-cooling experiments. These checks will help separate physical trends from model-specific effects and support the observed differences in wall-coverage continuity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: pure numerical CFD comparison

full rationale

The paper is a comparative numerical simulation study using RANS-based CFD with finite-rate chemistry and Lagrangian droplet tracking. All reported rankings (mist cooling optimal at 1-3% mass ratio, gaseous kerosene better at higher ratios) are direct outputs of the parametric simulation sweeps rather than any derivation, fitted parameter, or self-referential definition. No equations, ansatzes, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations are invoked to force the conclusions; the modeling assumptions are standard and explicitly flagged by the authors. The central claim remains independent of internal reductions and rests on external numerical execution against the chosen turbulence/chemistry models.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard CFD modeling assumptions whose details are not provided in the abstract; free parameters include coolant mass flow ratios and injection geometry that are varied parametrically.

free parameters (1)

coolant mass ratio
Varied between 1% and higher values to compare thermal protection versus propulsion penalty

axioms (1)

domain assumption The chosen turbulence model and chemical kinetics mechanism are sufficiently accurate for ranking cooling strategies
Invoked implicitly by reporting stable detonation structures and temperature fields

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5598 in / 1405 out tokens · 45342 ms · 2026-05-08T06:04:13.075363+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Rosato, M

D.A. Rosato, M. Thornton, J. Sosa, C. Bachman, G.B. Goodwin, K.A. Ahmed, Stabilized detonation for hypersonic propulsion, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (2021) e2102244118

2021
[2]

Verreault, A.J

J. Verreault, A.J. Higgins, R.A. Stowe, Formation o f transverse waves in oblique detonations, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 34 (2013) 1913-1920

2013
[3]

Viguier, L.F.F.d

C. Viguier, L.F.F.d. Silva, D. Desbordes, B. Deshaies, Onset of oblique detonation waves: Comparison between experimental and numerical results for hydrogen-air mixtures, Symposium (International) on Combustion 26 (1996) 3023-3031

1996
[4]

Zhang, C

Z. Zhang, C. Wen, W. Zhang, Y. Liu, Z. Jiang, Formation of stabilized oblique detonation waves in a combustor, Combustion and Flame 223 (2021) 423-436

2021
[5]

C. Tian, H. Teng, B. Shi, P. Yang, K. Wang, M. Zhao, Propagation instabilities of the oblique detonation wave in partially prevaporized n -heptane sprays, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 984 (2024) A16

2024
[6]

J. Sun, P. Yang, B. Tian, Z. Chen, Evolution and Control of Oblique Detonation Wave Structure in Unsteady Inflow, AIAA Journal 61 (2023) 4808-4820

2023
[7]

Z. Ren, B. Wang, G. Xiang, L. Zheng, Effect of the multiphase composition in a premixed fuel –air stream on wedge -induced oblique detonation stabilisation, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 846 (2018) 411-427

2018
[8]

H. Guo, Y. Xu, S. Li, H. Zhang, On the evolutions of induction zone structure in wedge -stabilized oblique detonation with water mist flows, Combustion and Flame 241 (2022). 14

2022
[9]

W. Wang, Z. Hu, P. Zhang, Computational investigation on the formation of liquid -fueled oblique detonation waves, Combustion and Flame 271 (2025)

2025
[10]

Abisleiman, V

S. Abisleiman, V. Sharma, R. Bielawski, V. Raman, Structure of three -dimensional conical oblique detonation waves, Combustion and Flame 274 (2025)

2025
[11]

Roy, S.M

G.D. Roy, S.M. Frolov, A.A. Borisov, D.W. Netzer, Pulse detonation propulsion: Challenges, current status, and future perspective, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004) 545-672

2004
[12]

Kawalec, P

M. Kawalec, P. Wolański, W. Perkowski, A. Bilar, Development of a liquid-propellant rocket powered by a rotating detonation engine, Journal of Propulsion and Power 39 (2023) 554-561

2023
[13]

Jorgensen, Z

E. Jorgensen, Z. Cordero, D. Vaccaro, Structural optimization of regeneratively cooled rotating detonation rocket engines, AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum, 2022

2022
[14]

S. Lu, Q. Zhu, J. Gong, H. Chen, L. Fan, Numerical study of phase change heat transfer in rotating detonation combustion chamber with transpiration cooling using liquid coolant, Applied Thermal Engineering 265 (2025)

2025
[15]

J. Yu, S. Yao, J. Li, J. Li, Y. Lei, R. Wang, W. Zhang, Experimental investigation of the hydrogen-air rotating detonation engine with cat -ear-shaped film cooling holes, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 89 (2024) 1454-1465

2024
[16]

Y. Zhou, S. Yao, J. Yu, W. Qian, P. Wang, W. Zhang, Endwall and leading -edge film cooling of turbine blades in a hydrogen -fueled rotating detonation combustor–turbine coupled system, Energy 335 (2025) 138307

2025
[17]

H. Teng, C. Tian, Y. Zhang, L. Zhou, H.D. Ng, Morphology of oblique detonation waves in a stoichiometric hydrogen–air mixture, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 913 (2021)

2021
[18]

J. Li, Y. Lei, S. Yao, J. Yu, J. Li, W. Zhang, Investigation of multi -stage evaporation and wave multiplicity of two -phase rotating detonatio n waves fueled by ethanol, Acta Astronautica 213 (2023) 418 - 430

2023
[19]

J. Li, S. Yao, J. Yu, J. Li, Y. Lei, W. Zhang, Shock interactions and re -initiation mechanism of liquid ethanol-fueled rotating detonation wave, Physics of Fluids 36 (2024) 096106

2024
[20]

J. Li, S. Yao, Y. Lei, J. Yu, W. Zhang, Characterization of droplet kinematics and spatial distribution in a two - phase ethanol -fueled rotating detonation flow field, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 102 (2025) 260-273

2025
[21]

M. Zhao, H. Zhang, Model ling rotating detonative combustion fueled by partially pre-vaporized n-heptane sprays, arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08617, (2020)

work page arXiv 2009
[22]

Franzelli, E

B. Franzelli, E. Riber, M. Sanjosé , T. Poinsot, A two- step chemical scheme for kerosene-air premixed flames, Combustion and Flame 157 (2010) 1364-1373

2010
[23]

B. Wang, Z. Ren, Effects of Fuel Concentration Gradient on Stabilization of Oblique Detonation Waves in Kerosene –Air Mixtures, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, doi:10.1007/s10494-023-00425-2(2023)

work page doi:10.1007/s10494-023-00425-2(2023 2023
[24]

Salvadori, A

M. Salvadori, A. P anchal, S. Menon, Numerical study of spray combustion effects on detonation propagation, AIAA Journal 61 (2023) 5347-5364

2023
[25]

Zhang, R

W. Zhang, R. Yang, Z. Zhang, Y. Liu, Z. Zhang, Y. Wang, H. Chen, Effects of Evaporation Modeling on Kerosene–Air Oblique Detonat ion, Journal of Propulsion and Power 41 (2025) 700-715

2025
[26]

X. -Y. Liu, M. -Y. Luan, Y. -L. Chen, J. -P. Wang, Propagation behavior of rotating detonation waves with premixed kerosene/air mixtures, Fuel 294 (2021) 120253

2021
[27]

W. Ling, C. Ren, L. Zhou, Y. Zha ng, Numerical study on the internal/external flow and thrust -drag characteristics of oblique detonation engine -based aircraft, Aerospace Science and Technology 152 (2024)

2024
[28]

Ciccarelli, J

G. Ciccarelli, J. Card, Detonation in Mixtures of JP -10 Vapor and Air, AIAA Journal 44 (2006) 362-367

2006
[29]

Ranz, W.R

W.E. Ranz, W.R. Marshall, Evaporation from drops: Part 2, Chemical Engineering Progress 48 (1952) 173 - 180

1952
[30]

Ranz, W.R

W.E. Ranz, W.R. Marshall, Evaporation from drops: Part 1, Chemical Engineering Progress 48 (1952) 141 - 146

1952
[31]

Figueria Da Silva, B

L.F. Figueria Da Silva, B. Deshaies, Stabilization of an oblique detonation wave by a wedge: a parametric numerical study, Combustion and Flame 121 (2000) 152-166

2000
[32]

Desai, Y

S. Desai, Y. Tao, R. Sivaramakrishnan, J.H. Chen, Effects of non -thermal termolecular reac tions on wedge-induced oblique detonation waves, Combustion and Flame 257 (2023)

2023
[33]

Papalexandris, A numerical study of wedge - induced detonations, Combustion & Flame 120 (2000) 526-538

M.V. Papalexandris, A numerical study of wedge - induced detonations, Combustion & Flame 120 (2000) 526-538

2000