-
Detonation is a supersonic combustion in which a shock wave propagates driven by an energy release in a reaction zone. Compared with deflagration, detonation has high thermodynamic efficiency and fast heat release rate. The traditional propulsion system based on the isostatic combustion is relatively mature, and its performance is very difficult to further improve. Therefore, detonation is expected to improve the performance of the propulsion system. Replacing the isobaric combustion chamber of turbojet engine with rotating detonation combustor can not only improve the combustion chamber efficiency, but also reduce the number of compressor stages, reduce the weight of engine and simplify the structure of engine. In order to study the operation characteristics of rotating detonation combustor with a turbine guide vane, a series of experiments is conducted, with hydrogen used as fuel and air as oxidant at different equivalence ratios. Based on the signals of high frequency pressure sensor and static pressure sensor, the operation mode of rotating detonation combustor and the effect of a turbine guide vane on the inhomogeneous and unstable detonation products are analyzed in detail. The experimental results show that when the equivalent ratio is less than 0.5, the rotating detonation combustor operates in a rapid deflagration mode and the pressure of combustion wave is about 0.6 bar (1 bar = 105 Pa). The rotating detonation combustor begins to operate in an unstable rotating detonation mode when the equivalence ratio increases to 0.6, and the pressure of detonation wave is about 6 bar. The rotating detonation combustor operates in a stable rotating detonation mode when the equivalence ratio reaches 0.82, and the pressure of detonation wave is about 16.3 bar. In addition, the propagation velocity gradually increases and the stability improves with the increase of the equivalence ratio. The oblique shock wave interacts with the turbine guide vane, and part of the oblique shock wave is reflected back to combustor, which causes some small pressure fluctuations in combustor. The turbine guide vane can obviously suppress the amplitude of pressure oscillation, but has little effect on the frequency of pressure oscillation. The upstream and downstream static pressure of the turbine guide vane increase simultaneously with equivalence ratio increasing. Furthermore, the static pressure of detonation products decreases obviously after passing through the turbine guide vane.
-
Keywords:
- rotating detonation combustor /
- turbine guide vane /
- operation characteristics /
- oscillation pressure
[1] Rankin B A, Fotia M L, Naples A G, Stevens C A, Hoke J L, Kaemming T A, Theuerkauf S W, Schauer F R 2017 J. Propul. Power 33 131
Google Scholar
[2] Wolański P 2013 Proc. Combust. Inst. 34 125
Google Scholar
[3] Anand V, Gutmark E 2019 Prog. Energy Combust. 73 182
Google Scholar
[4] Zhou R, Wu D, Wang J P 2016 Chin. J. Aeronaut. 29 15
Google Scholar
[5] Yang C L, Wu X S, Ma H, Peng L, Gao J 2016 Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 71 154
Google Scholar
[6] Bykovskii F A, Zhdan S A, Vedernikov E F 2014 Combust. Explos.Shock Waves 50 214
Google Scholar
[7] Fotia M L, Hoke J, Schauer F 2018 Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 94 345
Google Scholar
[8] Ma Z, Zhang S J, Luan M Y, Yao S B, Xia Z J, Wang J P 2018 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 18521
Google Scholar
[9] Stechmann D P, Sardeshmukh S, Heister S D, Mikoshiba K 2019 J. Propul. Power 35 125
Google Scholar
[10] Bluemner R, Bohon M D, Paschereit C O, Gutmark E J 2019 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 7628
Google Scholar
[11] Li B X, Wu Y W, Weng C S, Zheng Q, Wei W L 2018 Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 93 366
Google Scholar
[12] Lin W, Zhou J, Liu S J, Lin Z Y, Zhuang F C 2015 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 1980
Google Scholar
[13] Anand V, St George A, Gutmark E 2017 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 12629
Google Scholar
[14] Anand V, St George A, Driscoll R, Gutmark E 2015 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 16649
Google Scholar
[15] Xie Q F, Wang B, Wen H C, He W 2019 J. Propul. Power 35 141
Google Scholar
[16] Xie Q F, Wen H C, Li W H, Ji Z F, Wang B, Wolanski P 2018 Energy 151 408
Google Scholar
[17] Wen H C, Xie Q F, Wang B 2019 Combust. Flame 210 389
Google Scholar
[18] Sun J, Zhou J, Liu S, Lin Z, Lin W 2018 Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 81 383
Google Scholar
[19] Frolov S M, Aksenov V S, Ivanov V S, Shamshin I O 2015 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 1616
Google Scholar
[20] Tsuboi N, Watanabe Y, Kojima T, Hayashi A K 2015 Proc. Combust. Inst. 35 2005
Google Scholar
[21] Jourdaine N, Tsuboi N, Ozawa K, Kojima T, Koichi Hayashi A 2019 Proc. Combust. Inst. 37 3443
Google Scholar
[22] Anand V, St George A, Driscoll R, Gutmark E 2016 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 1281
Google Scholar
[23] Sousa J, Paniagua G, Collado Morata E 2017 Appl. Energy 195 247
Google Scholar
[24] Ji Z F, Zhang H Q, Wang B 2019 Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 92 806
Google Scholar
[25] Ishiyama C, Miyazaki K, Nakagami S, Matsuoka K, Kasahara J, Matsuo A, Funaki I 2016 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference Salt Lake City, USA, July 25−27, 2016 p5103
[26] Higashi J, Nakagami S, Matsuoka K, Kasahara J, Matsuo A, Funaki I, Moriai H 2017 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Grapevine, USA, January 9−13, 2017 p1286
[27] Naples A, Hoke J, Battelle R, Schauer F 2019 J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141 021029
Google Scholar
[28] Bach E, Bohon M D, Paschereit C O, Stathopoulos P 2018 AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum Cincinnati, USA, July 9−11, 2018 p4479
[29] Welsh D J, King P I, Debarmore N D, Schauer F R, Hoke J L 2014 AIAA SciTech National Harbor, USA, January 13−17, 2014 p1316
[30] Zhou S B, Ma H, Li S, Liu D K, Yan Y, Zhou C S 2017 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 20297
Google Scholar
[31] Zhou S, Ma H, Ma Y, Zhou C S, Liu D K, Li S 2018 Acta Astronaut. 151 7
Google Scholar
[32] Wolański P 2015 Appl. Mech. Mater. 782 3
Google Scholar
-
图 1 实验系统图
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experiment system.
图 2 RDC和涡轮导向器
Figure 2. Photograph of rotating detonation combustor and turbine guide vane.
图 3 传感器位置
Figure 3. Locations of sensors.
图 4 时序控制图
Figure 4. Experimental time sequence.
图 5 工况11集气腔压力曲线
Figure 5. Pressure trace of propellant manifolds in test 11.
图 6 高频压力曲线 (a)整体图; (b)局部放大图
Figure 6. High-frequency pressure: (a) Global graph; (b) magnified results.
图 7 速度分布图
Figure 7. Velocity-time distribution.
图 8 频域分析图 (a) FFT结果; (b) STFT结果
Figure 8. Frequency domain analysis: (a) FFT results; (b) STFT results.
图 9 PCB1-PCB3高频压力曲线
Figure 9. High-frequency pressure of PCB1-PCB3.
图 10 工况5集气腔压力
Figure 10. Pressure trace of propellant manifolds in test 5.
图 11 工况5结果分析 (a)高频压力曲线; (b) FFT结果
Figure 11. Result analysis in test 5: (a) High-frequency pressure; (b) FFT results.
图 12 工况2集气腔压力
Figure 12. Pressure trace of propellant manifolds in test 2.
图 13 工况2结果分析 (a)高频压力曲线; (b) FFT结果
Figure 13. Result analysis in test 2: (a) High-frequency pressure; (b) FFT results.
图 14 平均速度和相对标准偏差
Figure 14. Average velocity and relative standard deviation of detonation wave.
图 15 涡轮导向器上下游结果分析 (a)高频压力及静压; (b) FFT结果
Figure 15. Analysis of upstream and downstream results of turbine guide vane: (a) High-frequency pressure and static pressure; (b) FFT results.
图 16 涡轮导向器上下游流场参数统计 (a) 频率; (b) 静压
Figure 16. Statistics of flow field parameters in upstream and downstream of turbine guide vane: (a) Frequency; (b) static pressure.
图 17 静态压力及平均峰值压力随当量比的变化 (a) 静态压力; (b) 平均压力峰值
Figure 17. Variation of static pressure and average peak pressure with equivalent ratio: (a) Static pressure; (b) average peak pressure.
表 1 实验工况表
Table 1. Test conditions.
工况 氢气流量/g·s–1 空气流量/g·s–1 当量比 工作模式 1 3.8 438 0.30 快速爆燃 2 5.2 437 0.41 快速爆燃 3 5.7 438 0.45 快速爆燃 4 6.3 437 0.50 快速爆燃 5 7.6 438 0.60 不稳定爆轰 6 8.2 439 0.65 不稳定爆轰 7 9.0 436 0.72 不稳定爆轰 8 9.5 438 0.75 不稳定爆轰 9 10.4 439 0.82 稳定爆轰 10 11.1 438 0.88 稳定爆轰 11 12.9 436 1.03 稳定爆轰 12 14.2 438 1.13 稳定爆轰 13 15.4 439 1.22 稳定爆轰 14 16.5 437 1.31 稳定爆轰 
DownLoad: CSV
-
[1] Rankin B A, Fotia M L, Naples A G, Stevens C A, Hoke J L, Kaemming T A, Theuerkauf S W, Schauer F R 2017 J. Propul. Power 33 131
Google Scholar
[2] Wolański P 2013 Proc. Combust. Inst. 34 125
Google Scholar
[3] Anand V, Gutmark E 2019 Prog. Energy Combust. 73 182
Google Scholar
[4] Zhou R, Wu D, Wang J P 2016 Chin. J. Aeronaut. 29 15
Google Scholar
[5] Yang C L, Wu X S, Ma H, Peng L, Gao J 2016 Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 71 154
Google Scholar
[6] Bykovskii F A, Zhdan S A, Vedernikov E F 2014 Combust. Explos.Shock Waves 50 214
Google Scholar
[7] Fotia M L, Hoke J, Schauer F 2018 Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 94 345
Google Scholar
[8] Ma Z, Zhang S J, Luan M Y, Yao S B, Xia Z J, Wang J P 2018 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 18521
Google Scholar
[9] Stechmann D P, Sardeshmukh S, Heister S D, Mikoshiba K 2019 J. Propul. Power 35 125
Google Scholar
[10] Bluemner R, Bohon M D, Paschereit C O, Gutmark E J 2019 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 7628
Google Scholar
[11] Li B X, Wu Y W, Weng C S, Zheng Q, Wei W L 2018 Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 93 366
Google Scholar
[12] Lin W, Zhou J, Liu S J, Lin Z Y, Zhuang F C 2015 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 1980
Google Scholar
[13] Anand V, St George A, Gutmark E 2017 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 12629
Google Scholar
[14] Anand V, St George A, Driscoll R, Gutmark E 2015 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 16649
Google Scholar
[15] Xie Q F, Wang B, Wen H C, He W 2019 J. Propul. Power 35 141
Google Scholar
[16] Xie Q F, Wen H C, Li W H, Ji Z F, Wang B, Wolanski P 2018 Energy 151 408
Google Scholar
[17] Wen H C, Xie Q F, Wang B 2019 Combust. Flame 210 389
Google Scholar
[18] Sun J, Zhou J, Liu S, Lin Z, Lin W 2018 Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 81 383
Google Scholar
[19] Frolov S M, Aksenov V S, Ivanov V S, Shamshin I O 2015 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 1616
Google Scholar
[20] Tsuboi N, Watanabe Y, Kojima T, Hayashi A K 2015 Proc. Combust. Inst. 35 2005
Google Scholar
[21] Jourdaine N, Tsuboi N, Ozawa K, Kojima T, Koichi Hayashi A 2019 Proc. Combust. Inst. 37 3443
Google Scholar
[22] Anand V, St George A, Driscoll R, Gutmark E 2016 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 1281
Google Scholar
[23] Sousa J, Paniagua G, Collado Morata E 2017 Appl. Energy 195 247
Google Scholar
[24] Ji Z F, Zhang H Q, Wang B 2019 Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 92 806
Google Scholar
[25] Ishiyama C, Miyazaki K, Nakagami S, Matsuoka K, Kasahara J, Matsuo A, Funaki I 2016 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference Salt Lake City, USA, July 25−27, 2016 p5103
[26] Higashi J, Nakagami S, Matsuoka K, Kasahara J, Matsuo A, Funaki I, Moriai H 2017 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Grapevine, USA, January 9−13, 2017 p1286
[27] Naples A, Hoke J, Battelle R, Schauer F 2019 J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141 021029
Google Scholar
[28] Bach E, Bohon M D, Paschereit C O, Stathopoulos P 2018 AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum Cincinnati, USA, July 9−11, 2018 p4479
[29] Welsh D J, King P I, Debarmore N D, Schauer F R, Hoke J L 2014 AIAA SciTech National Harbor, USA, January 13−17, 2014 p1316
[30] Zhou S B, Ma H, Li S, Liu D K, Yan Y, Zhou C S 2017 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 20297
Google Scholar
[31] Zhou S, Ma H, Ma Y, Zhou C S, Liu D K, Li S 2018 Acta Astronaut. 151 7
Google Scholar
[32] Wolański P 2015 Appl. Mech. Mater. 782 3
Google Scholar
DownLoad:
Catalog
Metrics
- Abstract views: 7273
- PDF Downloads: 83
- Cited By: 0
