0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Aircraft Engine

Intake Flow Analysis of a Pulsed Detonation Engine

[+] Author and Article Information
Joshua A. Strafaccia

USAF Test Pilot School Class 15A,
220 South Wolfe Avenue,
Edwards AFB, CA 93524;
University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
e-mail: joshua.strafaccia@us.af.mil

Semih M. Ölçmen

Associate Professor
Mem. ASME
Aerospace Engineering
and Mechanics Department,
University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
e-mail: solcmen@eng.ua.edu

John L. Hoke

Innovative Scientific Solutions, Inc.,
Dayton, OH 45459
e-mail: john.hoke.4.ctr@us.af.mil

Daniel E. Paxson

NASA Glenn Research Center,
21000 Brookpark Road,
Cleveland, OH 44135
e-mail: daniel.e.paxson@nasa.gov

Contributed by the Aircraft Engine Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received October 15, 2015; final manuscript received August 7, 2016; published online October 18, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Eric Petersen.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(4), 041201 (Oct 18, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1492; doi: 10.1115/1.4034635 History: Received October 15, 2015; Revised August 07, 2016

Unsteady flow within the intake system of a hydrogen–air pulse detonation engine (PDE) has been analyzed using a quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) computational fluid dynamic (CFD) code. The analysis provides insight into the unsteady nature of localized equivalence ratios and their effects on PDE performance. For this purpose, a code originally configured to model the PDE tube proper was modified to include a 6.1 m long intake with a single fuel injector located approximately 3.05 m upstream of the primary intake valve. The results show that constant fuel mass flow rate injection from the injector creates large local variations in equivalence ratio throughout the PDE within a cycle. The effect of fill fraction on the engine performance is better described with the presence of the inlet model. However, the effect of ignition delay is shown to be better predicted with a model without the inlet.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Schauer, F. , Miser, C. , Tucker, C. , Bradley, R. , and Hoke, J. , 2005, “ Detonation Initiation of Hydrocarbon-Air Mixtures in a Pulsed Detonation Engine,” AIAA Paper No. 2005-1343.
Paxson, D. , Schauer, F. , and Hopper, D. , 2009, “ Performance Impact of Deflagration to Detonation Transition Enhancing Obstacles,” AIAA Paper No. 2009-502.
The University of Texas at Arlington Academics Research Center, 2014, “ Pulsed Detonation Engines,” University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX.
Litke, P. , Schauer, F. , Paxson, D. , Bradley, R. , and Hoke, J. , 2005, “ Assessment of the Performance of a Pulsejet and Comparison With a Pulsed-Detonation Engine,” AIAA Paper No. 2005-228.
Tangirala, V. , and Harris, P. , 2007, “ Performance Estimation for Subsonic-to-Supersonic Operating Conditions of a Pulse Detonation Engine,” AIAA Paper No. 2007-5076.
Tangirala, V. , and Dean, A. , 2006, “ Performance Estimations of a Pulse Detonation Engine With Exit Nozzle,” AIAA Paper No. 2006-4792.
Harris, P. , Stowe, R. , and Guzik, S. , 2004, “ Design Methodology for a Pulse Detonation Engine as a Ramjet Replacement,” AIAA Paper No. 2004-3400.
Anderson, S. , Tonouchi, J. , Lidstone, G. , Lupkes, K. , and Alfonso, J. , 2004, “ Performance Trends for a Product Scale Pulse Detonation Engine,” AIAA Paper No. 2004-3402.
Eidelman, S. , and Eidelman, S. , 1997, “ Pulse Detonation Engine—A Status Review and Technology Development Road Map,” 33rd Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Eidelman, S. , and Yang, X. , 1998, “ Analysis of the Pulse Detonation Engine Efficiency,” 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Zhang, Z.-C. , Yu, S. , He, H. , and Jorgenson, P. , 2001, “ Direct Calculations of Plume Dynamics of a Pulse Detonation Engine by the CE/SE Method,” 37th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Mohanraj, R. , and Merkle, C. , 2000, “ A Numerical Study of Pulse Detonation Engine Performance,” 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Allgood, D. , Gutmark, E. , Hoke, J. , Bradley, R. , and Schauer, F. , 2005, “ Performance Measurements of Multi-Cycle Pulse Detonation Engine Exhaust Nozzles,” J. Propul. Power, 22(1), pp. 70–779. [CrossRef]
Jenkins, T. , and Hanson, R. , 2000, “ Soot Diagnostic for Pulse Detonation Engine Studies,” AIAA Paper No. 2000-3588.
Kailasanath, K. , 2001, “ A Review of Research on Pulse Detonation Engine Nozzles,” 37th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Allgood, D. , Gutmark, E. , and Katta, V. , 2002, “ Effects of Exit Geometry on the Performance of a Pulse Detonation Engine,” 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Yungster, S. , 2003, “ Analysis of Nozzle and Ejector Effects on Pulse Detonation Engine Performance,” AIAA Paper No. 2003-1316.
Qiu, H. , Xiong, C. , and Yan, C.-J. , 2006, “ The Thermodynamic Performance of Ideal Single-Tube Air-Breathing Pulse Detonation Engine,” ASME Paper No. ESDA2006-95099.
Wintenberger, E. , Austin, J. M. , Cooper, M. , Jackson, S. , and Shepherd, J. E. , “ Impulse of a Single-Pulse Detonation Tube,” California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Munday, D., St. , George, A. , Driscoll, R. , Stoddard, W. , Romanchuk, B. , and Gutmark, E. , 2013, “ The Design and Validation of a Pulse Detonation Engine Facility With and Without Axial Turbine Integration,” AIAA Paper No. 2013-0275.
Watanabe, K. , and Matsuo, A. , 2006, “ Numerical Simulation of Pulse Detonation Engine With a Thermally Perfect Overall Reaction Model,” AIAA Paper No. 2006-556.
Guzik, S. , Harris, P. , and De Champlain, A. , 2002, “ An Investigation of Pulse Detonation Engine Configurations Using the Method of Characteristics,” 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Paper No. 2002-4066.
Mohanraj, R. , Merkle, C. , and Ebrahimi, H. , 2001, “ Modeling of Pulse Detonation Engine Operation,” AIAA Paper No. 2001-3813.
Algieri, A. , 2011, “ An Experimental Analysis of the Fluid Dynamic Efficiency of a Production Spark-Ignition Engine During the Intake and Exhaust Phase,” Int. Scholarly Res. Network, 2011(2011), p. 427976.
Foa, J. V. , 1960, Elements of Flight Propulsion, Wiley, New York, pp. 265–266.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Pulse detonation engine cycle [3]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Effect of equivalence ratio on thrust [19]. Experimental data were collected using a 50.8 mm ID, 1.52 m long, stainless steel PDE. Figure 15 of Ref. [19].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Effect of equivalence ratio on Isp [19]. Experimental data were collected using a 50.8 mm ID, 1.52 m long, stainless steel PDE. Figure 13 of Ref. [19].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

PDE model diagram including choked air inlet, intake tube, constant fuel mass flow, PDE tube inlet valve, and PDE tube

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Valve model mass flow rate variation with the intake manifold pressure. Tube length is 1.83 m. Equivalence ratio, Φ = 1.0. Experimental data are courtesy of AFRL.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pseudo-equivalence ratio with added intake model over one cycle at 10 Hz

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Normalized thrust variation with fill fraction. No-intake model results. Large symbols—experimental data and small symbols—model results. A 5 ms ignition delay. Φ = 0.7 for model and Φ = 1.0 for experiments. Experimental data are courtesy of AFRL.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Normalized thrust variation with fill fraction. Intake-modified model results. Large symbols—experimental data and small symbols—model results. A 5 ms ignition delay. Φ = 0.7 for model and Φ = 1.0 for experiments. Experimental data are courtesy of AFRL.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effects of intake model and fill fraction on thrust performance. A 5 ms ignition delay.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Unmodified thrust with ignition delay (left). Intake model results (right) (Φ normalized to 1). Large symbols—experimental data (Φ = 1.0) and small symbols—model. Experimental data are courtesy of AFRL.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Head pressure variation with fill fraction in a cycle. Experimental results (Φ = 1.0), and no-intake model results (Φ = 0.7). Experimental data are courtesy of AFRL.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Head pressure variation with fill fraction in a cycle. Experimental (Φ = 1.0), and intake-modified model results (Φ = 0.7). Experimental data are courtesy of AFRL.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Cold flow pressure variation in PDE. Experimental results at 30 Hz. Fill fraction = 1.0. Experimental data are courtesy of AFRL.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Cold flow pressure variation in PDE. Intake model results at 30 Hz. Fill fraction = 1.0.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In