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

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Pulse detonation engine cycle [3]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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