Advertisement

Numerical Simulation of Compression and Detonation Strokes in a Pulse Compression Detonation System

Conference paper
  • 270 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

At the National Technical University “Kharkiv Polytechnical Institute”, an experimental pulse compression detonation (PCD) system was developed to operate on propane-air mixtures while addressing potential issues with regards to efficiency, ignitability of the gas, and the critical tube diameter for detonation. In this PCD system, the reactive gas was pre-compressed within the detonation tube, before ignition. The resulting mixture was found easier to ignite, and the transition to detonation within the tube was much more reliable and consistent. To gain further insight, and to investigate the effect of pressure gradient on the strength/velocity of outflow products and the overall thermodynamic cycle, a two-stage modelling procedure was adopted. First, a 3D inert simulation of the compression process of the PCD system was conducted using ANSYS. The resulting pressure and density profiles within the detonation tube were then prescribed as initial conditions for a 2D detonation stroke and outflow simulation. For this stage, the Compressible Linear Eddy Model for Large Eddy Simulation (CLEM-LES) framework adopted. For the PCD system, it was found that higher peak pressures were obtained at the outflow location of the tube when compared to a detonation tube filled initially at constant pressure equal to the ambient condition. As a result, the higher thermal efficiency of the detonation cycle may be achieved. However, it was found that the outflow products were under expanded, which may adversely affect the generated impulse. Therefore, the use of nozzles should be investigated in future work as part of the PCD system proposed here.

Keywords

Gas compression Detonation initiation Pressure and density profiles 

References

  1. 1.
    Schauer, F., Stutrud, J., Bradley, R.: Detonation initiation studies and performance results for pulsed detonation engine applications. In: 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Paper AIAA 2001-1129. AIAA, Reno (2001).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-1129
  2. 2.
    Stevens, C.A., Hoke, J.L., Schauer, F.R.: Propane/air cell size correlation to temperature and pressure. In: 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Paper AIAA 2016-1400. AIAA, San Diego (2016).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-1400
  3. 3.
    Korytchenko, K., Kysternyy, Y., Sakun, O.: Propane and air mixture-based short-barrel detonation gun. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Colloquium on the Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems, Paper 4332. ICDERS, Boston (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kailasanath, K., Patnaik, G.: Performance estimates of pulsed detonation engines. Proc. Combust. Inst. 28(1), 595–601 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0082-0784(00)80259-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ma, F., Choi, J.-Y., Yang, V.: Thrust chamber dynamics and propulsive performance of single-tube pulse detonation engines. J. Propuls. Power 21(3), 512–526 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.7393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ma, F., Choi, J.-Y., Yang, V.: Internal flow dynamics in a valveless airbreathing pulse detonation engine. J. Propuls. Power 24(3), 479–490 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.29957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, M., Shepherd, J.E.: The effect of transient nozzle flow on detonation tube impulse. In: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Paper AIAA 2004-3914. AIAA, Fort Lauderdale (2004).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-3914
  8. 8.
    Wintenberger, E., Austin, J.M., Cooper, M., et al.: Analytical model for the impulse of single-cycle pulse detonation tube. J. Propuls. Power 19(1), 22–38 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.2514/2.6099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zheng, F., Kuznetsov, A.V., Roberts, W.L.: Numerical study of a pulsejet-driven ejector. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Paper AIAA 2009-5185. AIAA, Denver (2009).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-5185
  10. 10.
    Radulescu, M.I., Hanson, R.K.: Effect of heat loss on pulse-detonation-engine flow fields and performance. J. Propuls. Power 21(2), 274–285 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.10286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perkins, H.D.: Effects of fuel distribution on detonation tube performance. NASA Technical Memorandum NASA/TM-2002-211712 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maxwell, B.M., Bhattacharjee, R.R., Lau-Chapdelaine, S.S., et al.: Influence of turbulent fluctuations on detonation propagation. J. Fluid Mech. 818, 646–696 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2017.145MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tangirala, V.E., Dean, A.J., Tsuboi, N., Hayashi, A.K.: Performance on a pulse detonation engine under subsonic and supersonic flight conditions. In: 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Paper AIAA 2007-1245. AIAA, Reno (2007).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-1245
  14. 14.
    Bull, D.C., Elsworth, J.E., Shuff, P.J., Metcalfe, E.: Detonation cell structures in fuel/air mixtures. Combust. Flame 45, 7–22 (1982).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(82)90028-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franquet, E., Perrier, V., Gibout, S., Bruel, P.: Free underexpanded jets in a quiescent medium: a review. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 77, 25–53 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cambier, J.-L., Tegnér, J.K.: Strategies for pulsed detonation engine performance optimization. J. Propuls. Power 14(4), 489–498 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daniau, E., Zitoun, R., Couquet, C., Desbordes, D.: Effects of nozzles of different length and shape on the propulsion performance of pulsed detonation engines. In: Roy, G.D., Frolov, S.M., Netzer, D.W., Borisov, A.A. (eds.) High-Speed Deflagration and Detonation: Fundamentals and Control, pp. 251–262. ELEX-KM Publishers, Moscow (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fay, J.A.: Two-dimensional gaseous detonations: velocity deficit. Phys. Fluids 2(3), 283–289 (1959).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1705924MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chao, J., Ng, H.D., Lee, J.H.S.: Detonability limits in thin annular channels. Proc. Combust. Inst. 32(2), 2349–2354 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2008.05.090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Camargo, A., Ng, H.D., Chao, J., Lee, J.H.S.: Propagation of near-limit gaseous detonations in small diameter tubes. Shock Waves 20(6), 499–508 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-010-0253-3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ishii, K., Monwar, M.: Detonation propagation with velocity deficits in narrow channels. Proc. Combust. Inst. 33(2), 2359–2366 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2010.07.051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu, M.H., Wang, C.Y.: Reaction propagation modes in millimeter-scale tubes for ethylene/oxygen mixtures. Proc. Combust. Inst. 33(2), 2287–2293 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2010.07.081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eidelman, S., Yang, X.: Analysis of the pulse detonation engine efficiency. In: 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Paper 3877. AIAA, Cleveland (1998).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1998-3877

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.National Technical University “Kharkiv Polytechnical Institute”KharkivUkraine
  3. 3.National Aerospace University “Kharkiv Aviation Institute”KharkivUkraine

Personalised recommendations