Computational Analysis of Pulse

Detonation Engine: Effects of

Converging and Diverging Tube
Geometries
a project presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Aerospace Engineering
San José State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering

by

Bhagyashree Nagarkar
December 2018

approved by

Dr. Periklis E. Papadopoulos

Faculty Advisor
 © 2018

Bhagyashree Nagarkar

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2
 The Designated Project Advisor Approves the Thesis Tilted

COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS OF PULSE DETONATION ENGINE: EFFECTS OF CONVERGING

AND DIVERGING TUBE GEOMETRIES

By

Bhagyashree Nagarkar

APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY

December 2018

Dr. Periklis E. Papadopoulos Department of Aerospace Engineering

3
 ABSTRACT
COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS OF PULSE DETONATION ENGINE: EFFECTS OF
CONVERGING AND DIVERGING TUBE GEOMETRIES
by Bhagyashree Nagarkar

The pulse detonation engines (PDE) are an extension of pulse-jet engines, where PDEs detonate

their fuels, rather than deflagrate. In view of its advantages of high thermodynamic efficiency,

light weight, low cost, variability of thrust, etc., PDEs will serve as next generation’s flight

technology. Initially this paper summarizes the detonation physics and development of PDEs over

the years by providing computational simulations and experimental work undertaken by various

research facilities. Then, a validation case for a constant area detonation is run using the CFD code

provided by ANSYS Fluent. The detonation wave propagation is greatly affected by the tube

geometry and hence another case validation is run by introducing an inclination along the length

of the tube. Thus, converging or diverging section of the tube, increased or decreased the average

wave velocity. The other detonation characteristics, especially the pressure showed variations

depending upon the tube geometry.

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Nikos Mourtos and Prof. Dr. Periklis Papadopoulos for their

support, guidance and education provided for the completion of this project and throughout my

graduate career. I would like to also thank my Lab partner, Samuel Zuniga, without whom the

success of this project was not possible. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and my friends

who stood by me through all good and bad times.

5
Table of Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 8

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Nomenclature .............................................................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 12
1.1 Background and Motivation.................................................................................................................. 12
1.2 Detonation Physics................................................................................................................................ 14
1.2.1 Deflagration versus Detonation ..................................................................................................... 14
1.2.2 Steady State versus Unsteady State Engines .................................................................................. 14
1.2.3 CJ Theory ....................................................................................................................................... 15
1.2.4 ZND Detonation Wave Structure ................................................................................................... 18
1.2.5 ZND Detonation Wave Propagation .............................................................................................. 21
1.3 Concept of Pulse Detonation Engine .................................................................................................... 22
1.3.1 Pure PDE Cycle ............................................................................................................................. 22
1.3.2 PDE Concept Model ...................................................................................................................... 23
1.3.3 Advantage of PDE ......................................................................................................................... 23
1.3.4 Flight Applications of PDE ............................................................................................................ 24
1.4 Literature Review.................................................................................................................................. 26
1.4.1 Reviews on Experimental Studies.................................................................................................. 26
1.4.2 Reviews on Computational Modeling Studies ............................................................................... 30
1.5 Project Proposal .................................................................................................................................... 35
1.6 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER 2 COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS SETUP .......................................................................... 37
2.1 Detonation Initiation ......................................................................................................................... 37
2.1.1 Direct Initiation .......................................................................................................................... 37
2.1.2 Deflagration to Detonation Transition (DDT)............................................................................ 37
2.3 Chemical Kinetics ............................................................................................................................. 38
2.4 Converging and Diverging Detonation Tube Geometries ................................................................. 40
2.5 Boundary Conditions Setup .............................................................................................................. 41
2.6 CFD Solver ....................................................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 3 GOVERNING EQUATIONS ............................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 4 CASE VALIDATION: EFFECTS OF TUBE GEOMETRY ............................................... 47
4.1 Case 1: 1-D Wave Propagation in a Constant Area Tube ................................................................. 47

6
 4.2 Case 2: 1-D Wave Propagation in Varying Area Tube ..................................................................... 49
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 51
5.1 Constant Area Rectangular Tube ...................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Simulation vs. NASA CEA ............................................................................................................... 54
5.3 Varying Area Tube............................................................................................................................ 55
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 66
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................. 66
Appendix B ................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................. 69

7
List of Figures

Figure 1 Russia State Corporation for Space Activities (RosCosmos) Prototype of PDE (Vizcaino, 2013)

.................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2 Detonation wave in constant area tube ......................................................................................... 16

Figure 3 Rayleigh line - Hugoniot curve PV diagram................................................................................. 16

Figure 4 Variation of physical properties for ZND conditions ................................................................... 19

Figure 5 Location of von Neumann spike ................................................................................................... 20

Figure 6 "Fish scale" structure of the detonation wave (Valli & Jindal, April 2014) ................................. 20

Figure 7 ZND Pressure Profile within the detonation tube ......................................................................... 21

Figure 8 Pure PDE operating cycle ............................................................................................................. 22

Figure 9 Structure of PDE concept model .................................................................................................. 23

Figure 10 PDE- hybrid gas turbine engine (a) detonation wave propagation in tube, (b) placement of

detonation tubes .......................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 11 General PDE experimental setup with Shchelkin spiral ............................................................. 28

Figure 12 Multi-cycle simulations showing temperature contours ............................................................. 31

Figure 13 Schematic of supersonic air-breathing PDE ............................................................................... 32

Figure 14 Computational PDE model with dimensions (including choked inlet, intake tube, and constant

fuel mass flow) ............................................................................................................................................ 33

Figure 15 Schematic of a Valve-less PDE setup ......................................................................................... 33

Figure 16 Supersonic Flow in Converging -Diverging Section ..................................................................... 41

Figure 17 Algorithm for Density Based solver in ANSYS Fluent .............................................................. 42

Figure 18 Schematic of 2-D Axisymmetric Ideal PDE tube .......................................................................... 47

Figure 19 2-D Adaptive mesh of ideal PDE tube ......................................................................................... 47

Figure 20 Initial conditions for the ideal PDE tube with pressure contour ................................................. 49

8
Figure 21 PDE tube with positive angle of inclination (𝛼𝛼) .......................................................................................... 49

Figure 22 PDE tube with negative angle of inclination (𝛼𝛼) ........................................................................................ 50

Figure 23 Initial conditions for PDE tube having positive inclination with pressure contour ..................... 50

Figure 24 Initial conditions for PDE tube having negative inclination with pressure contour .................... 50

Figure 25 Detonation wave propagation along the ideal PDE tube with Pressure contours...................... 51

Figure 26 ZND Pressure profile ................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 27 ZND Temperature profile ............................................................................................................ 53

Figure 28 Detonation wave propagation along the PDE tube with positive inclination showing pressure

contours ...................................................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 29 Detonation wave propagation along the PDE tube with negative inclination showing pressure

contours ...................................................................................................................................................... 56

9
List of Tables

Table 1 Setup and initialization conditions unburned gas mixture .............................................. 48

Table 2 Setup and initialization conditions for ignition region ..................................................... 48

Table 3 Wave velocity measurement............................................................................................ 54

Table 4 CJ conditions..................................................................................................................... 55

Table 5 Variations of Pressure in PDE tube with inclinations ....................................................... 57

Table 6 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =-3° .......................................................................... 58

Table 7 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =-2° .......................................................................... 59

Table 8 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =-1° .......................................................................... 59

Table 9 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =+1° ......................................................................... 60

Table 10 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =+2° ....................................................................... 60

Table 11 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =+3° ....................................................................... 61

10
Nomenclature

1-D One Dimensional

PDE Pulse Detonation Engine

CJ Chapman Jouget

ZND Zeldovich-von Neumann-Doring

CD Convergence Divergence nozzle

𝑃𝑃1, 𝑃𝑃2 Pressure upstream and downstream

𝜌𝜌1, 𝜌𝜌2 Density upstream and downstream

𝑣𝑣1, 𝑣𝑣2 One – dimensional velocity

ℎ1, ℎ2 Enthalpy of the fuel/oxidizer (per unit mass)

𝑞𝑞 Heat addition (per unit mass)

Eq. Equation(s)

𝜗𝜗1, 𝜗𝜗2 Specific volume

𝜇𝜇 Wave speed

e Internal energy of fuel/oxidizer

11
 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Motivation

The pulse detonation engine (PDE) is an unsteady propulsion system that utilizes the high

rate of energy release from detonation waves to produce thrust (Yungster, 2003). A simple physics

of detonation-based combustion is used to achieve higher performance than current, steady state

deflagration-based engines. This detonation-generated thrust reduces the need for high pressure

pumps or engine compressor, and in doing so, give a significant advantage over current air-

breathing propulsion systems.

An ideal PDE consists of a constant area tube closed at one end, and open to the atmosphere

at the other end. PDE generates thrust at irregular intervals, which produces a significant pressure

rise in combustor region by adding heat at constant volume. (Ma, 2003) Thus, PDE cyclically

detonates fuel and atmospheric air mixtures to generate thrust.

Figure 1 Russia State Corporation for Space Activities (RosCosmos) Prototype of PDE

(Vizcaino, 2013)

Using detonation in PDEs results in large pressure and temperature increases, as the

combustion region is coupled to a supersonic shock wave. (Glassman & Yetter, 2008) Thus

12
detonation is a much more energetic and violent phenomena than deflagration. For modeling and

understanding of PDEs, the complex nature of the detonation waves is simplified with the use of

Chapman-Jouguet (C-J) and Zeldovich-von Neumann-Doring (ZND) models, which will be

discussed in brief in the following section.

PDEs became the first practical, experimentally-tested detonation engines in the 1990s.

(Ma, 2003) While they are simple and efficient in many ways, PDEs have many engineering

challenges yet to be resolved. One of the main challenges is the requirement for repeated initiation

of detonations within the detonation chamber. Another major challenge, is the timing and control

of valving the fresh reactants for efficient performance. This complex system adds weight to the

propulsion system. (Srihari & Mallesh, 2015) Other challenges include the length of the tube

required to achieve deflagration to detonation transition (DDT) which increases the combustor

size; and the limited operating frequency attained so far.

In recent years, numerous studies and experiments have been done regarding the

development of detonation initiation, nozzles and ejectors, and system level performance estimates

in order to overcome the above-mentioned challenges. (Ebrahimi, 2002) The key features of PDEs

are rapid combustion species and energy conversion, to attain a specific detonation velocity and

desired thrust. Some of the initial research work done by Eidelman and Grossmann (Eidelman,

“Review of Propulsion Applications and Numerical Simulations of The Pulse Detonation Engine

Concept, 1991) have been reviewed in the following section, to understand the work done in the

late 1980s on PDEs. The basic PDEs theory and concept studied by Bussing and Pappas (T. & G.,

1995) have been discussed. The focus of this chapter is more on the review of performance

estimates from various experimental, numerical, and computational studies.

13
1.2 Detonation Physics

1.2.1 Deflagration versus Detonation

The process of combustion is related to energy release by deflagration or detonation.

Deflagration is the most common type of combustion and is considered as isobaric, or a

constant pressure process. (T. & G., 1995) Here the combustion propagates via heat transfer; hot

burning fuel-oxidizer mixture heats the next layer of unburnt mixture and ignites it. The speed at

which fuel-oxidizer mixture burns is subsonic and is a controllable process. Deflagration burns

outward radially, and the speed of propagation depends upon the availability of fuel. For example,

the combustion process in gas turbine engines.

Detonation is a supersonic combustion process, where the decomposition/ combustion

reaction releases a lot of energy in short span of time, resulting in large overpressures (up to 20

bars) and high propagating velocities (up to 2000 m/s). (Yungster, 2003) Thus, detonation is a

constant volume combustion process with a supersonic shock wave.

1.2.2 Steady State versus Unsteady State Engines

Based on the combustion process employed, the air-breathing engines are grouped as

steady (quasi-steady) or unsteady. (T. & G., 1995) The steady state engines are characterized by

deflagration-based combustion process and are the most widely used class of engines. Examples

of this type are turbojets and ramjet engines.

Unsteady engines can be either deflagration-based or detonation-based combustion.

(Srihari & Mallesh, 2015) In this class of devices, the combustion is based on burned fuel/oxidizer

speeds, and combustion chamber characteristics. For example, pulse jet engines and PDEs.

14
1.2.3 CJ Theory

For studying PDE performance, the detonation waves can be modeled as discontinuities in

the flow of an ideal fuel-oxidizer at which heat addition occurs (Ma, 2003). This modeling

describes basic detonation wave physics of a 1-D propagation in a constant area tube.

As per conservation equations for mass, momentum, and energy for detonation waves and

equation of state (Thattai, 2010) (5 A combustion wave in a premixed gas, the Chapman-Jouguet

detonation wave, n.d.);

Mass continuity:

𝜌𝜌1𝑢𝑢𝐷𝐷 = 𝜌𝜌2(𝑢𝑢𝐷𝐷 − 𝑢𝑢2) (2.1)

Momentum conservation:

𝑝𝑝1 + 𝜌𝜌1𝑢𝑢2𝐷𝐷 = 𝑝𝑝2 + 𝜌𝜌2(𝑢𝑢𝐷𝐷 − 𝑢𝑢2)2 (2.2)

Energy equation:

𝑝𝑝2 1
𝛾𝛾 𝑝𝑝1 1
+ 𝑢𝑢2 + 𝑞𝑞 =
𝛾𝛾 + (𝑢𝑢 − 𝑢𝑢 )2 (2.3)
𝛾𝛾−1 𝜌𝜌1 𝐷𝐷
2 𝛾𝛾−1 𝜌𝜌2 2 𝐷𝐷 2

where the velocities relative to wave front are expressed as those relative to the tube; uD being the

detonation velocity, γ is the specific heat ratio, subscript 1 denotes the unburned gas or reactants,

state and subscript 2 for the final state of burned gas behind the detonation wave (Figure 2) (Ma,

2003).

15
 Figure 2 Detonation wave in constant area tube

Combining Eq. (2.1) and (2.2) to get Rayleigh relation,

(𝑝𝑝2−𝑝𝑝1)
= −𝜌𝜌2𝑢𝑢2 (2.4)
1 1
− 1 𝐷𝐷
𝜌𝜌2 𝜌𝜌1

Rearranging Eq. (2.1) to (2.3) results in the following relation referred to as Hugoniot relation,

𝛾𝛾 𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝1 1 1 1
( 2− ) − (𝑝𝑝 − 𝑝𝑝 ) ( + ) = 𝑞𝑞 (2.5)
𝛾𝛾−1 𝜌𝜌2 𝜌𝜌1 2 2 1 𝜌𝜌2 𝜌𝜌1

The Hugoniot expressions relate the thermodynamic properties upstream and downstream

of a combustion region. These two relations given by Eq. (2.4) and (2.5) is plotted as p2 verses

1/ρ2 plane to get a Rayleigh line and Hugoniot curve as in Figure 3 (Ma, 2003).

Figure 3 Rayleigh line - Hugoniot curve PV diagram

16
 In the above figure, the point A denotes the unburned gas state through which all Rayleigh

lines pass. Among these lines there are two which are tangent to the Hugoniot curve and the

corresponding tangent points are the CJ points where points, U and L refer to the upper and lower

CJ points respectively. The upper CJ point represents minimum detonation velocity while the

lower corresponds to a minimum detonation velocity. The horizontal and vertical Rayleigh lines

passing through point A relates to constant-pressure and constant-volume processes. Thus, the

possible state outcome depends on the intersection of Rayleigh line and Hugoniot curves.

The CJ condition is given as;

𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾2
𝑣𝑣 = 𝑢𝑢 − 𝑢𝑢 = = 𝑎𝑎′ or
2 𝐷𝐷 2 √ 𝜌𝜌2 2

𝑣𝑣2
𝑀𝑀′ = =1 (2.6)
2 𝑎𝑎2′

Based on the relation of the velocity of burned gas relative to the wave front, the Hugniot

curve is divided into five regions, from regions I to V as in figure where regions I and II are

detonation section having a supersonic wave front velocity; regions III and IV denoting the

deflagration section with a subsonic wave front velocity (Ma, 2003) (Lam, Tillie, T., & B., 2004).

In region I the supersonic flow is converted to subsonic; i.e., u2 + a2’ > uD. Hence, this

region is referred to as strong detonation or overdriven detonation region, and is unstable. There

are chances that any rarefaction waves arising behind the wave front will overtake and weaken the

detonation wave, by reducing the pressure while decreasing the final values of P2 and 1/ρ2. The

rarefaction waves can form due to heat losses, turbulence, or friction. Thus, the solutions in this

region are possible only for transient state.

17
 Region II is known as weak detonation region with flow remaining supersonic; i.e., u2 +

a2’ < uD. Here, the structure of the detonation wave is a shock wave followed by chemical reaction

leading to heat addition. But for a steady flow in constant–area tube, the fluid cannot be accelerated

to from subsonic to supersonic, therefore no solution exists in region II. Similar conditions are

observed in Region IV which is known as a strong-deflagration region. The density decreases, and

due to heat addition the wave is accelerated from subsonic to supersonic. Thus, region IV is

physically impossible and a strong-deflagration is never observed.

Region III is known as the weak-deflagration region as the deflagration wave propagates

at subsonic velocity. The pressure is reduced and the flow remains subsonic.

Thus, at the point U, the velocity of the detonation wave is equal to the velocity of sound

in the burned gases; uD = a2’, as well as the mass velocity of those gases, and no rarefaction will

overtake it. This makes point U a “self-sustained” detonation and is referred to as the C-J result.

The detonation velocity in CJ condition is calculated with no knowledge of the chemical

reaction rate or structure of the wave.

1.2.4 ZND Detonation Wave Structure

In the early 1940s, Zeldovich, von Neumann, and Doring independently arrived at a theory

for the structure of the detonation wave where the kinetics and mechanism of the reaction give the

time and spatial separation of the front and the C-J plane (Figure 4). Their theory states that a

detonation wave is a planar shock wave propagating at detonation velocity while leaving heated

and compressed burned gas behind it. This shock wave while propagating, also provides activation

energy to ignite unburned gases, whereas the energy released by the reaction keeps the shock

moving. (Glassman & Yetter, 2008) ZND wave theory also assumes that no reaction takes place

18
in the shock wave region due to its width being in the order of few mean free paths of the gas

molecules, whereas the width of the reaction region is in order of one centimeter (Ma, 2003) (Lam,

Tillie, T., & B., 2004).

Figure 4 Variation of physical properties for ZND conditions

The above diagram shows a graphical variation of density, pressure and temperature of a

detonation wave travelling to the left through unburned gases. Plane 1 denotes the state of

unburned gas just before the occurrence of shock wave. Plane 1’ denotes the state when detonation

occurs and state immediately behind the shock wave. The deflagration region begins from plane

1’ and finishes at plane 2, where the system reaches CJ state. This region is divided into induction

zone and reaction zone, based on the kinetics of the gas mixture. Due to the slow rate of the

chemical reaction the density, pressure and temperature are relatively flat, and temperature is not

very high. While in the reaction zone heat addition takes place due to increase in rate of reaction,

thus drastically changing the gas properties.

The stage right after the shock wave high pressure is generated due to shock wave

compressing the gas. This is denoted as the intersection point of the shock Hugnoit curve and the

19
Rayleigh line above the upper CJ section. This point is referred to as the von Neumann spike

(Figure 5). This phenomenon occurs at zero chemical reaction rate.

Figure 5 Location of von Neumann spike

The complex cellular three-dimensional structure of the detonation wave is experimentally

observed and is generally referred as “fish-scale” structure (Figure 6). The characteristic size of

the fish scale like structure refers to the detonation cell size (𝜆𝜆).

Cell size (𝜆𝜆)

Figure 6 "Fish scale" structure of the detonation wave (Valli & Jindal, April 2014)

20
1.2.5 ZND Detonation Wave Propagation

The detonation wave propagates in a constant –area tube closed at one end. This is followed

by a rarefaction wave and a uniform region, shows pressure profile within the tube. (Ma, 2003)

Figure 7 ZND Pressure Profile within the detonation tube

For a ZND model following quantitative properties are observed. This table also provides

the difference between detonation and deflagration parameters. (Vizcaino, 2013)

Table 2 Detonation vs. Deflagration Quantitative differences

21
1.3 Concept of Pulse Detonation Engine

Detonation engines consist of three categories: Oblique Detonation Wave Engine (ODWE)

where the burned fuel/oxidizer mixture velocity equals or exceeds C-J velocity, Continuous or

Rotational Detonation Engine (CDE / RDE) where burned fuel/oxidizer mixture is injected along

axial direction with the detonation wave propagating in azimuthal direction, and lastly PDEs which

operate on pure PDE cycle.

1.3.1 Pure PDE Cycle

The pure PDE cycle begins by filling the detonation combustion chamber with a detonable

mixture. Detonation is initiated with an initiation device at the closed end of the tube. (Yungster,

2003) (Ma, 2003) A detonation wave compresses the fuel/oxidizer as it travels through the

combustor which results in rapid release of heat and a sudden rise in pressure. It is during this

interval of time, that most of the PDE thrust is produced. The detonation wave exits at the open

end of the tube into surrounding air followed by the burned gages, also known as purging stage.

When the conditions within the tube reach a specified state, the tube is supplied with a fresh

detonable mixture (filling stage), and the cycle is repeated as in Figure 8. This pure PDE cycle is

repeated 20-100 times per second to produce thrust.

Figure 8 Pure PDE operating cycle

22
1.3.2 PDE Concept Model

A detonation is created via DDT or direct detonation. DDT begins with a deflagration

initiated using a weak energy source, then increasing the pressure and temperature leads to

formation of detonation wave. However, this process can take over a several meters of tube length

and large amount of time. Direct initiation is dependent upon an ignition source driving a

detonation wave of sufficient thrust which travels down the detonation tube, and exit in the

atmosphere through a nozzle.

Figure 9 Structure of PDE concept model

For efficient functionality of PDEs, it is needed to minimize the cycle time and maximize

thrust, also the ignition and mixing must occur quickly. It is necessary to shorten DDT distances

as this further decreases the PDE cycle, allowing frequency and thrust increase. An air-breathing

PDE model typically consists of an air inlet with fuel injector located at the inlet or head end of

detonation tube. DDT augmentation ignitor device is placed in the detonation section of the

combustor. Finally, a nozzle is attached at the open end of the tube to enhance the engine thrust by

a blowdown process. (Srihari & Mallesh, 2015)

1.3.3 Advantage of PDE

The rate of release of chemical energy during a combustion process defines the propulsive

efficiency of a vehicle. For a detonation based combustion this energy is three times of magnitude

23
higher than in a deflagration based combustion process. (Helman, June 1986) A pulsed mode of

operation is utilized in PDEs to control the rate of combustible mixture supply. This eliminates the

need for any heavy built fuel injection pump machinery, which further helps in decreasing the

weight of the propulsion system. Additionally, the high pressure generated by detonation wave

compresses the gas, thus further mitigating the need for compressors or turbines which are used in

current air-breathing engines. Thus, the lower machinery part count contributes to easy

maintenance of PDEs. This also contributes to an overall weight decrease, improving thrust-to-

mass ratio and lowering the cost of the PDE system (Yungster, 2003).

The constant volume combustion cycle in a PDE gives the advantage of thermodynamic

efficiency and reduced CO emissions as compared to constant pressure combustion cycle in

deflagration based engines. The thermodynamic cycle efficiency of a PDE is 30% to 50% higher

than other cycle efficiencies for a chemically reacting hydrogen-air (fuel-oxidizer) mixture

(Bussan) thus resulting in higher specific impulses. A good operating frequency results in good

performance and based on this, efforts are being made over several decades to improve and

establish a controlled detonation (Lam, Tillie, T., & B., 2004).

1.3.4 Flight Applications of PDE

As Pulse Detonation Engines have numerous potential advantages over current air-

breathing and other space propulsion systems, PDEs find many applications in the aerospace

industry. One of the interesting proposed application of PDE propulsion includes the combination

of a PDE and turbine cycles. (Lam, Tillie, T., & B., 2004) PDE-hybrid gas turbine engines, where

the continuous flow combustor is replaced with multiple pulsed detonation chambers (Figure 10).

These engines can then be used for a faster, more efficient and environmental friendly commercial

24
and military aircraft. But the operating cycle combination of PDE and gas turbine is a matter of

considerable complexity.

(a) (b)

Figure 10 PDE- hybrid gas turbine engine (a) detonation wave propagation in tube, (b) placement of

detonation tubes

Pure PDEs find applications in propulsion system for missiles, unmanned vehicles, and

other small-scale applications. For these applications, pure PDEs have a higher performance at

around Mach 1. To further improve the operating efficiency for high Mach numbers, like at Mach

5, a combined cycle PDE is used where, PDEs are added to the flow path of a ramjet or scramjet

engines. These engines would then be suitable for high-altitude, high-speed aircrafts.

Therefore, due to the many advantages offered by PDEs, they can be used in space

propulsion systems to reduce the cost and complexity of launching space-crafts.

25
1.4 Literature Review

1.4.1 Reviews on Experimental Studies

Several studies have been conducted over many decades by various organizations and

research facilities in an effort to overcome the shortcomings of using PDE technology. Early in

the 1960s, studies were carried out by University of Michigan (Krzycki, 1962) and the US Naval

Ordinance Test Station, but they were unable to generate a successful detonation. The reason being

inappropriate implementation of a DDT augmentation device. This lead to the conclusion that

PDEs hold no future for flight applications and further studies came to a halt. However, in 1980s

PDE gained attention again due to series of successful experiments carried out by Helman

(Helman, June 1986) at the US Naval Postgraduate School. The focus of these studies was to

improve the operating frequency and specific impulse. A mixture of ethylene-air was used and

based on the experimental results, high operating frequencies of 150 Hz and high specific range of

1000-1400 seconds were obtained.

Further experimental studies done on PDEs were either single-pulse or multi-pulsed

detonation based experiments. Single-pulsed experiments involve only the initiation of detonation

wave and its propagation followed by blowdown process. Experiments including multi-cycle

initiation include the additional purging and refilling processes. Single pulse initiation experiments

are carried to determine the required fuel/oxidizer mixture detonation initiation energy, validate

the concepts, to measure detonation wave parameters, and to serve as initial stage for more

complex multi-cycle initiation. Both hydrogen (H2) and hydrocarbon based fuels are used in the

experiments. The hydrocarbon fuels include both gaseous fuels like ethylene (C2H4) and propane

(C3H8) and liquid fuels like JP10 (C10H16). (Ma, 2003)

26
 The performance of a PDE is generally measured based on impulse generated and the

process implied for detonation initiation. However, the methods used for impulse measurements

fail to be accurate as the engine inlet conditions along with purging and refilling cycles are not

considered. Detonation is attained either through direct initiation or DDT (Section III). Through

many attempts it is observed that direct detonation is limited to single-pulse experiments, thus

most PDE experiments use a DDT process. A proper detonation is achieved based on DDT length

which is the distance from the ignition to the detonation formation and it depends on the fuel

mixture used, tube dimensions, the tube wall surface roughness and the ignition method used. (Ma,

2003)

Experimental studies carried out by Sinibaldi (Sinibaldi, July 2001) revealed that the

placement of ignitor from head end of tube as well as the equivalence ratio for a mixture of

C2H4/O2/N2 greatly affects the DDT length. The minimum DDT length of 7.5 cm for the mixture

was obtained with an equivalence ratio of 1.2. It was also observed that DDT length increased

greatly with a reduced equivalence ratio (𝜙𝜙) of 0.75. Similar studies made, lead to the fact that

DDT length can be larger compared to actual detonation tube length. Various tests carried out by

Hinkey (Hinkey, July 1995) using H2-O2 mixtures with different equivalence ratios, suggested

employing DDT augmentation devices to attain an affective DDT process with reduced DDT

length

To assist in the DDT process, the Shchelkin (Shchelkin, 1940) spiral device is used,

introduced by a Russian physicist. Kirill Ivanovich Shchelkin in the year 1965. Based on results

of experiments it is found that Shchelkin spiral reduced the DDT length by a factor of about three.

Other obstacles were also introduced by various researchers for the same propose. However, it was

observed that introduction of these obstacles resulted in total pressure loss and low propulsive

27
efficiency. As per Cooper (Cooper M. J., 2002) it was reported that the DDT length reduced by

65% but resulted in reduced impulse by 25%.

Figure 11 General PDE experimental setup with Shchelkin spiral

A nozzle is used at the end of detonation tube to improve the performance of the PDE by

utilizing the internal energy of the exhausting detonation products. However, as PDEs are unsteady

by nature it is complicated to design a suitable nozzle. Furthermore, to date, no theory for PDE

nozzle design has been established several experimental and numerical studies are reviewed to

understand the effects of nozzle design on PDE performance. (Cooper M. a., July 2002)

Experiments carried out by US Naval Postgraduate school (2010) (Kailasanath K. ) were

focused on increasing the overall efficiency of PDE by converting thermal energy into kinetic

energy. This was attained by dynamically varying the effective nozzle area ratio. Testing was

conducted on various injection flow rates and computer simulations were also used to observe the

fluid flow characteristics. It was observed that mass flow rate injection greatly affected the

pressure. However due to insufficient time the experiment was not completed. Another work,

carried out by Chen and Fan (2011) (Kailasanath K. , 2009-631) showed the nozzle effects of

various shapes on thrust and inlet pressure of a multi-cycle air-breathing PDE. It was observed that

28
thrust augmentation of a straight nozzle, diverging nozzle and converging-diverging nozzle were

better than a converging nozzle. Pressure near the thrust wall increased with addition of nozzle.

It has also been observed through various experiments that flame acceleration, DDT, and

detonation propagation is affected greatly by structure and wall roughness of the detonation tube.

The velocity of detonation wave is reduced in rough wall tubes as compared to smooth wall tubes

(Kailasanath K. ) (Kailasanath K. , 2009-631) (Ma, 2003).

Large experimental data from all over the world has provided the effect of various mixture

composition of fuels on performance of PDE. Detonations in heterogeneous mixture and having

high equivalence ratio, i.e. high fuel concentration, achieved high detonation velocities

(Kailasanath K. ) (Kailasanath K. , 2009-631).

The tube diameter also affects the propagation of detonation wave. Through experimentally

and computational analysis it was found that detonation cell size is a function of initial pressure,

temperature, mixture composition and tube diameter (Nichollas, 1957). This is referred to as the

critical diameter of the tube. It was concluded that there is successful transition of detonation wave

from ignition tube to main combustor tube if the ignition tube diameter is less than the critical

diameter. (Cooper M. J., 2002) (T. & G., 1995) (Krzycki, 1962) (Ma, 2003)

Experimental studies have also been carried out to observe the effects of varying the cross

sectional area of the detonation tube. In doing so, the transient behavior of the propagating shock

and the subsequent flow characteristics were predicted. These studies included keeping the same

tube diameter, or maintaining the same diaphragm pressure ratio, and by introducing tapering a

section of the channel. It was observed that the strength of the shock wave (its velocity, detonation

pressure and so on) travelling down a channel of varying area, was affected positively or negatively

29
depending upon the tube area at that location, as well as the flow behind the shock were disturbed.

However, not many studies have been carried out, to predict the exact behavior of the shock waves.

The above mentioned experimental studies have many limits and hence numerical or

computational modelling is generally preferred to study the unsteady nature of PDE.

1.4.2 Reviews on Computational Modeling Studies

Various numerical and analytical investigations were made to attain a better understanding

of single-pulse and multi-pulse operations of various single tube or multi-tube PDEs in

combination with and without nozzles and ejectors.

To estimate the performance of PDEs, a simple model was proposed by Endo and Fujiwara.

(Endo & Fujiwara, 2002) The model consists of a straight tube, closed at one end (inlet) and open

on the other end (outlet), having a detonation region near the closed end and does not include a

nozzle at the outlet. The one cycle pulse consists of three phases: combustion, exhaust, and filling

phases. The simulations carried out on this model showed that through simplified theoretical

analysis, useful formulae for impulse density per unit cycle operation and time-averaged thrust

density could be derived.

Analytical studies undertaken by Yungster (Yungster, 2003) to understand the effects of

adding nozzle at exhaust of detonation tube. A numerical model was setup and computational fluid

dynamics was used to confirm results. Single pulsed simulations for a 1.0 m long tube with or

without nozzle filled with hydrogen-air mixture. Multi-cycle analysis results showed that the

combustion products need to be purged from nozzle before start of next cycle, for nozzle to

function effectively Figure 12.

30
 Figure 12 Multi-cycle simulations showing temperature contours

One of main challenges of producing PDEs practically, is the requirement for repeated

initiation of detonations within detonation chamber. The requirement to capture the time-accurate

motion of detonation wave is challenge in computational modelling. Shihari, Mallesh et.al (Srihari

& Mallesh, 2015) studied the one-step overall reaction model to reduce this computational load.

Both 1-D and 2-D axisymmetric tubes were considered for simulations. Their studies showed that

one-step model is sufficient to predict the flow properties. They also investigated the influence of

different grid sizes on the occurrence of von Neumann spike, CJ pressure and detonation velocity.

31
 Ma (Ma, 2003) conducted CFD simulations to study flow dynamics and system

performance of air-breathing PDEs using H2-air one step reaction model. The simulation model

consisted of supersonic inlet, an air manifold, a rotary valve, a single or a multi-tube combustor,

and a convergent-divergent nozzle at predefined flight conditions. It was observed that keeping

purge time constant with longer refilling cycles, increased the specific thrust and C-D nozzle

increases the propulsion efficiency as the throat area plays a more important role than tube length.

It was also noted that multi-tube PDEs improve operational steadiness of the system compared to

single-tube geometry. This geometry helps reduced the imperfect nozzle expansion loss, however,

it induces more complicated shock waves and internal flow loss, thus decreasing the overall

propulsive performance.

Figure 13 Schematic of supersonic air-breathing PDE

It is necessary to study the intake flow analysis of PDE, as this significantly affects the

combustion process and hence the thrust generated. Unsteady flow within the intake system of a

hydrogen-air PDE was analysed by Strafaccia and Paxson (Kailasanath K. , 2009-631) using a

quasi 1D CFD code. The effect of fill fraction was better understood using an inlet model with

single fuel injector. The computed results showed that at constant fuel mass flow rate injection

32
creates large local variations in equivalence ratio throughout the PDE cycle and it was suggested

to maintain the fill ratio of 1.0 to avoid any loss of thrust.

Figure 14 Computational PDE model with dimensions (including choked inlet, intake tube,

and constant fuel mass flow)

Another study on the effects of the flow intake was conducted by Ma and Choi (Vizcaino,

2013) by modeling and simulating a valve-less air-breathing PDE. It was also being experimentally

developed and studied at U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. Using an ethylene/oxygen/air mixtures

the entire flow dynamics and multi-cycle operation of the engine was carefully investigated. Their

results indicated that the inflow must be carefully monitored to ensure successful propagation of

detonation wave from the initiator to main combustion chamber.

Figure 15 Schematic of a Valve-less PDE setup

The stoichiometry of the propellants used, significantly effects the simulation results. A

study carried out by Ebrahimi and Merkel (Ebrahimi, 2002) demonstrates the operational

33
performance of PDE based on the chemical reaction rate and number of species in CFD model.

1D and 2D, transient calculations were employed assuming finite rate chemistry for

hydrogen/oxygen combustion, based on eight chemical species and 16 reactions. Results indicated

variations in thrust and specific impulse as well as elevated chamber wall temperatures

(approximately 1500 K) for multi-cycle simulations.

In terms of applications of PDE, Harris and Stowe (Kailasanath K. ) performed a system-

level performance analyses of a PDE as a Ramjet replacement for Mach 1.2 to 3.5. With the help

of a two-dimensional constant volume analytical model, detonation timing, geometric and

injection parameters, providing optimal performance were determined. They also evaluated the

effect of partial fill and nozzle expansion ratio on specific impulse. It was observed that for the

considered Mach numbers, specific impulse for PDE was greater than that of a ramjet.

Recent studies are being carried out on PDE-hybrid gas turbine. CFD investigation carried

out by General Electric Global Research Centre, NY; studied the PDE-turbine interactions with

PDE operation on H2- air located upstream of one row of stationary, 2D turbine blades. The result

showed that the system reached a quasi-steady state rapidly for multi-cycle simulations than a

single pulsed, thus highlighting the limitations of single cycle calculations (Ma, 2003).

A computational and experimental program undertaken by Combustion Sciences Branch

of the Turbine Engine Division of the Air Force Research Laboratory focus on developing a PDE

model that uses a commercial available fuel (kerosene based, like the JP10). Preliminary data is

being obtained with premixed hydrogen- air mixture (Hinkey, July 1995).

From the literature review on computational analyses it is seen that none of the models

proposed have attempted to represent the unsteady flow in a tube having converging or diverging

34
tube geometry. Generally, performance estimates of PDEs is done using an idealized straight

detonation tube without inlets or any other additional apparatus. The study of ZND conditions are

then studied as the wave propagates along the length of tube till the open end. It is not entirely

possible to perform a direct comparison between the simulated results and experimental data as

the effects of factors such as initiators used and the boundary conditions applied differ.

1.5 Project Proposal

Study of PDEs has been a challenge to engineering knowledge by pushing the boundaries

of gas dynamics and help gain better understanding of combustion science and fluid dynamics. A

great part of current PDE research seems to be aiming at making the engine more commercially

applicable. As PDEs have a simple structure, accurate performance estimations on them can be

done by methods of CFD.

The objective of this project is to initially model a detonation flame front and successfully

run a single-tube pulse detonation engine using available CFD software. In doing so the time-

accurate motion of detonation wave will be captured using a finite rate chemistry. Once successful,

the effects of converging or diverging tube geometries on detonation propagation will be studied.

1.6 Methodology

For this study, initially an ideal PDE tube will be modeled to observe the ZND conditions

in 1D detonation wave propagation. The setup will be simulated considering one-step chemical

reaction model for hydrogen-air mixture. The CFD will be modeled using available version of

ANSYS FLUENT. The fluid mechanisms for PDE performance will be determined mainly for a

laminar viscous flow model. The heat-conduction, radiation and acoustics effects will not be

considered. The 2-D axisymmetric Euler equations for a multi-species, thermally perfect, chemical

35
reacting gas is taken into account where the global conservation equations are replaced by addition

of chemical species. On obtaining the desired results for this model, the tube will be converged or

diverged by introducing a positive or negative inclination, to study the effects on detonation

propagation.

36
 CHAPTER 2 COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS SETUP

2.1 Detonation Initiation

In order to start the PDE cycle stated in previous chapter; detonation initiation is achieved

via direct detonation initiation or deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT).

2.1.1 Direct Initiation

The direct initiation is started by providing energy to the closed end of the tube. The

mechanism for this type of detonation initiation is specific to the type of ignition source used. This

type of detonation initiation provides a constant velocity propagation inside a short length tube.

However, this require huge amount of energy which further reduce the engine efficiency. (Lee,

2008) (Garg & Dhiman, October, 2014).

In this paper, the detonation will be achieved through direct initiation. For this a high

pressure and a high temperature gas is introduced in the narrow region next to the closed end of

the tube.

2.1.2 Deflagration to Detonation Transition (DDT)

For a deflagration based initiation, it is hard to achieve a constant velocity propagating

wave as upon ignition, the self-propagating deflagrations tend to accelerate continuously and thus

are intrinsically unstable. However, by applying the appropriate boundary conditions the subsonic

deflagration is accelerated to a supersonic detonation velocity, thus transitioning abruptly between

two distinct states (Lee, 2008). With the help of a small ignition the deflagration is created and the

transition process then takes several meters of the detonation tube length and a corresponding large

amount of time, which can limit life frequency. This is in contrast to a direct initiation (Section

2.1.1). Thus, the DDT process can be divided into four phases: Deflagration initiation, flame

37
acceleration, formation and amplification of explosion centers, and formation of a detonation

wave.

2.3 Chemical Kinetics

In order to get the desired detonation going, it is necessary to introduce the accurate amount

of fuel-oxidizer ratio. This required amount is determined based on the equivalence ratio 𝜙𝜙 which

is defined as the actual fuel-oxidizer ratio to the chemically reacted fuel-oxidizer ratio. The

equivalence ratio can be calculated using either the mass fraction or the mole fraction of the

components or species of a given chemical equation as follows (Lim, 2010-12);

𝑚𝑚𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜂𝜂𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
Mass fraction 𝑌𝑌 = and Mole fraction 𝑁𝑁 =
𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝜂𝜂𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟

𝑌𝑌𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑁𝑁𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝜙𝜙 = 𝑌𝑌 = 𝑁𝑁 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟

(2.1)

Based on the above equation if value of 𝜙𝜙 is more than one it implies that the mixture is

fuel rich and less than one or just one, it implies that the mixture is fuel lean. Thus, the value of

equivalence ratio influences the thermodynamic properties and composition of the fuel-oxidizer

during the process of detonation. Because of its effects in achieving better ZND conditions, a

mixture of hydrogen-air having equivalence ratio (𝜙𝜙) of 1.0 is used for chemical combustion.

For this paper a one-step reaction model is considered. A one- or a single-step reaction

model is defined as the chemical reaction in which one or more chemical reactant species

undergoes chemical change to form products in a single reaction step with a single transition state.

The following equation gives this one step reaction.

2𝐻𝐻2 + (𝑂𝑂2 + 3.76𝑁𝑁2) → 2𝐻𝐻2𝑂𝑂 + 3.76𝑁𝑁2 (2.2)

38
Calculations of Mass Fraction for equation 2.2

For ϕ = 1.0 the species mass fractions (𝜆𝜆) for reactants and products are calculated as;

Reactant Species:

2𝐻𝐻2 2(2.01588)
𝑌𝑌𝐻𝐻2 = = = 0.02852
2𝐻𝐻 2 + (𝑂𝑂2 + 3.76𝑁𝑁2) 2(2.01588) + (31.998 + 3.76(28.0134))

𝑂𝑂2 31.0998
𝑌𝑌𝑂𝑂2 = = = 0.22635
2𝐻𝐻 2 + (𝑂𝑂2 + 3.76𝑁𝑁2) 2(2.01588) + (31.998 + 3.76(28.0134))

3.76𝑁𝑁2 3.76(28.0134)
𝑌𝑌𝑁𝑁2 = = = 0.74512
2𝐻𝐻 2 + (𝑂𝑂2 + 3.76𝑁𝑁2) 2(2.01588) + (31.998 + 3.76(28.0134))

Products Species

𝑌𝑌𝐻𝐻2𝑂𝑂 = 2𝐻𝐻2𝑂𝑂 = 2(18.0152) = 0.25488

2𝐻𝐻 𝑂𝑂 + 3.76𝑁𝑁 2(18.0152) + 3.76(28.0134)
2 2

𝑌𝑌𝑁𝑁2 = 3.76𝑁𝑁2 = 3.76(28.0134) = 0.74512

2𝐻𝐻 𝑂𝑂 + 3.76𝑁𝑁 2(18.0152) + 3.76(28.0134)
2 2

The above calculated values will then be used as initial species input values for the direct initiation

CFD setup. Default available ANSYS FLUENT values of pre-exponential factor and activation

energy are chosen for the present study (Ar = 9.87 x 108, E+ = 3.1 x 107 [J/kg-mol]).

39
2.4 Converging and Diverging Detonation Tube Geometries

Generally, a simple detonation tube consists of a flow channel having a constant

rectangular area, closed at one end and open to the atmosphere at the other. Due to the detonation

process, the velocities generated are of the magnitude 2000 [m/s], thus leading to a supersonic or

a hypersonic flow in the tube.

As per the compressible flow theory for a 1-D supersonic flow (M>1), an increase in flow

velocity is attained with an increase in the area of the channel (Anderson, 2015). Likewise, a

decrease in the flow velocity is associated with decrease in the area of the channel. The relation is

represented as:

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
= (𝑀𝑀2 − 1) (± )
𝐴𝐴 𝑢𝑢

(2.3)

Where,

dA = change in tube cross sectional area, (A = cross sectional area of the tube)

du = change in the flow velocity, (u = flow velocity)

(+ = increase and - = decrease)

Thus, for a supersonic flow, to increase the velocity, a divergent area is introduced, and to decrease

the velocity, a convergent area is introduced in the flow channel.

40
 Figure 16 Supersonic Flow in Converging -Diverging Section

A similar effect can be studied in the rectangular detonation tube by tapering a section of

the tube upwards or downwards, thus diverging or converging near the exit of the tube. This can

be done by keeping a portion of the tube as a constant area and then introducing a sudden increase

or decrease in the tube area, or gradually introducing a tapering from the closed end of the tube.

So far, there has not been published to date, any experimental or numerical justification of

the effects of converging-diverging sections in an unsteady flow.

2.5 Boundary Conditions Setup

As per the literature review, to correctly simulate the detonation propagation it is needed to

setup appropriate boundary conditions. The closed end and the upper side of the tube is considered

as ‘wall’. The lower side of the tube is set as ‘axis’ or ‘wall’ as per the simulation requirement.

The open end is generally considered as a ‘pressure outlet’, set at standard atmospheric conditions

(Yungster, 2003).

2.6 CFD Solver

The solver for CFD is included in Setup for ANSYS FLUENT, where the physics of the

problem is defined and solution is converged. A 2-D double precision solver is used to provide

accuracy for long tube PDE geometry. There are two kinds of solvers available in FLUENT:

41
Pressure-based solver and Density-based coupled solver. A density based solver is chosen for

simulation as it is applicable when there is a strong coupling, between the equations of state and/or

species. This solver solves the governing equations for mass, momentum, energy and species

transport simultaneously by employing a finite volume discretization method. Pressure is obtained

through the equation of state. Several iterations are needed to be performed to converge the

solution as the governing equations are coupled and non-linear. (Gopalakrishnan, 2017)

Figure 17 Algorithm for Density Based solver in ANSYS Fluent

The density-based solver can use either an implicit or explicit solution approach. Implicit

formulation is selected as the variables in all computational cells are solved simultaneously and

solution converges faster. However, this method takes more computation time and memory than

explicit approach. Roe’s Flux- Difference Splitting (Roe-FDS) scheme is recommended for high

Mach number flows as this scheme admits shocks as a possible solution of Euler equations, without

any extra calculations efforts. (Gopalakrishnan, 2017) (FLUENT, 2017)

42
 Several computational analyses were performed on an ideal PDE model to achieve the desired

ZND model parameters. Through literature reviews it was observed that ANSYS Fluent

(FLUENT, 2017) is capable of handling detonation generation. Hence, it has been chosen for

simulating an ideal PDE tube and calculating CJ and ZND detonation conditions. At the time of

performing CFD analysis the version ANSYS Fluent 19.1 is being used due to its availability. A

case study for 1-D detonation propagation with one-step chemical reaction model will be done to

verify the software’s capability.

43
 CHAPTER 3 GOVERNING EQUATIONS

The computational analysis of a problem in fluid dynamic is done in three steps: (i) model

a computational domain in the fluid, (ii) apply the conservation equations to this domain to

exemplify the physics and (iii) use these equations to get desired solutions. In Chapter 1 a

background study on PDE theory and concept was provided. This chapter deals with the governing

equations used for solving an ideal PDE model through computational analysis.

The system of governing equations used in ANSYS FLUENT to calculate the mean flow

properties for an arbitrary control volume 𝑉𝑉 having a differential surface area 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅 as follows

(FLUENT, 2017):

𝜕𝜕
∫ 𝑾𝑾 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + ∮[𝑭𝑭 − 𝑮𝑮] 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = ∫ 𝑺𝑺 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉

(3.1)

Where the vectors 𝑾𝑾, 𝑭𝑭, and 𝑮𝑮 are defined as follows:

𝜌𝜌 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 0
𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝑾𝑾 = 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 , 𝑭𝑭 = 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 , 𝑮𝑮 = 𝜏𝜏𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 ̂
𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑤𝑤 + 𝑝𝑝𝒌𝒌 𝜏𝜏𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
{𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 } {𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 } {𝜏𝜏𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑣𝑣𝑗𝑗 + 𝒒𝒒𝒒 }

(3.2)

The source terms such as body sources and energy sources are denoted by the vector 𝑺𝑺. Here , 𝑣𝑣, 𝐸𝐸,

𝑝𝑝, 𝜏𝜏, and 𝒒𝒒𝒒 represent the density, velocity, total energy per unit mass, static pressure of the fluid,

viscous stress tensor, and the heat flux respectively. Total enthalpy 𝐻𝐻 and the total energy 𝐸𝐸 is

given by,

44
 |𝑣𝑣2|
𝐻𝐻 = ℎ +
2

(3.3)

And

𝐸𝐸 = 𝐻𝐻 − 𝑝𝑝/𝜌𝜌

(3.4)

PDEs are generally modeled as 2-D axis-symmetric and when applying the assumptions

made for the transient combustion process in a pulse detonation tube, the governing equations

simplify to the unsteady 2-D Euler equations (Rouf, 2003), neglecting the vector 𝑮𝑮.

For modeling of chemical reactions, a one-step overall irreversible Arrhenius kinetics is

used, resulting in source terms being added. Furthermore, this results in following equations

expressed as (Srihari & Mallesh, 2015):

𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝒖𝒖 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝒗𝒗

+ + = 𝑺𝑺
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕

(3.5)

𝜌𝜌 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 0
𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌2 + 𝑝𝑝 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 0
𝑾𝑾 = 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 , 𝑭𝑭𝒖𝒖 = 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 , 𝑭𝑭𝒗𝒗 = 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝2 + 𝑝𝑝 , 𝑺𝑺 = 0
𝐸𝐸 (𝐸𝐸 + 𝑝𝑝)𝑢𝑢 (𝐸𝐸 + 𝑝𝑝)𝑣𝑣 0
𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌
{ } { 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 } { 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 } {𝜔𝜔 𝜔}

(3.6)

Where E is now written as;

45
 𝑝𝑝 𝜌𝜌(𝑢𝑢2 + 𝑣𝑣2)
𝐸𝐸 = + + 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌
(𝛾𝛾 − 1)𝜌𝜌 2

(3.7)

The pre-mixed test gas mixtures are considered and the burned gas is isentropically

expanded. The source term for species equation is given as a function of Arrhenius coefficient Ar

and activation energy E+;

𝐸𝐸+
𝜔𝜔𝜔 = −𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 exp (− ) 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 (3.8)
ℛ𝑇𝑇

This approach completely neglects any turbulence disturbances and considers only the effects of

chemistry.

In the ZND model for detonation, it is assumed that: (i) the flow is one dimensional; (ii)

the heat conduction, radiation, diffusion, and viscosity are neglected; (iii) there is no reaction

occurring ahead of the shock and thus the reaction rate is considered null; (iii) a one-step,

irreversible, finite rate chemical reaction; and (v) all thermodynamic variables except the chemical

composition are in local equilibrium state (Thattai, 2010). Therefore, the two dimensional Euler

equations for ZND model are used.

As, the general governing equations form a set of coupled, non-linear partial differential

equations, it is not possible to solve these equations numerically for most engineering problems.

However, it is possible to get approximate computer-based solutions to these equations through

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) by making many assumptions. Considering the goals of the

present study, the proper selection of flow solver must be made. In addition, the solver should be

able to simulate a detonation wave and model detailed chemical reactions.

46
 CHAPTER 4 CASE VALIDATION: EFFECTS OF TUBE GEOMETRY

4.1 Case 1: 1-D Wave Propagation in a Constant Area Tube

In the present computational simulation, the tube having a length (Lt) of 0.75 [m] and a

diameter (Dt) of 0.073 [m] is selected based on literature review. The direct detonation initiation

area is placed 0.005 [m] from the head end tube. This geometry used is generally referred to as an

ideal, 2-D axisymmetric model (Figure 18).

Unburned Gas Mixture

Ignition
Region 𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜, 𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜 Dt

𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 , 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Lt
Figure 18 Schematic of 2-D Axisymmetric Ideal PDE tube

A simple structured adaptive mesh with 2-D grids of size 0.1 [mm] is used to better estimate

the flow and detonation properties developing inside PDE tube (Figure 19).

Figure 19 2-D Adaptive mesh of ideal PDE tube

The model is initialized by patching the thin detonation region with steam (𝐻𝐻2𝑂𝑂) and nitrogen gas

at high pressures and temperatures while the hydrogen-air mixture was patched in remainder of

the tube having standard atmospheric conditions (Figure 18) (Figure 20). The following tables,

Table 1 and Table 2 show the initial conditions for both the regions. The calculations for mass

fraction of each species is as per Chapter 2, Section 2.3 (Lim, 2010-12) (Vizcaino, 2013).

47
 Table 1 Setup and initialization conditions unburned gas mixture

Input Parameters Values

Initial Pressure 𝑃𝑃0 1 [atm]

Initial Temperature 𝑇𝑇0 300 [K]

𝐻𝐻2 Mass Fraction 𝜆𝜆𝐻𝐻2 2.852 %

𝑂𝑂2 Mass Fraction 𝜆𝜆𝑂𝑂2 22.635 %

𝑁𝑁2 Mass Fraction 𝜆𝜆𝑁𝑁2 74.512 %

𝐻𝐻2𝑂𝑂 Mass Fraction 𝜆𝜆𝐻𝐻2𝑂𝑂 0.000 %

Table 2 Setup and initialization conditions for ignition region

Input Parameters Values

Initial Pressure 𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 30.4 [atm]

Initial Temperature 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 3000 [K]

𝐻𝐻2 Mass Fraction 𝜆𝜆𝐻𝐻2 0.000 %

𝑂𝑂2 Mass Fraction 𝜆𝜆𝑂𝑂2 0.000 %

𝑁𝑁2 Mass Fraction 𝜆𝜆𝑁𝑁2 74.512 %

𝐻𝐻2𝑂𝑂 Mass Fraction 𝜆𝜆𝐻𝐻2𝑂𝑂 25.488 %

The time step size was set to 10-8 seconds as the reaction time for detonation is very small.

Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) number was reduced to 0.5 based on the small grid size. As no

turbulence was considered, the viscous model is set to laminar.

48
 Figure 20 Initial conditions for the ideal PDE tube with pressure contour

The simulation of the reaction model is compared with Vizcaino as the gas mixture used was

hydrogen-air and 2-D axisymmetric simulation was done using ANSYS Fluent code. Although for

his simulation, nitrogen was treated as an inert gas i.e. non reacting species, for this model nitrogen

is included in the reaction model for attaining better ZND conditions.

4.2 Case 2: 1-D Wave Propagation in Varying Area Tube

For the varying area, the PDE tube is inclined at angles 𝛼𝛼 = +1°, +2°, +3° and -1°, -2°,-3°

(Figures 21 and 22). This inclination, positive or negative, is introduced in the unburnt gas mixture

section of the tube, keeping the length (Lt), the diameter at the closed end of the tube, and the area

of the ignition region constant having values as mentioned in Section 4.1. Thus, only the diameter

of the open end varied as per the inclination angle (𝛼𝛼). This geometry set-up is modeled for a 2-D

axisymmetric simulations.

Figure 21 PDE tube with positive angle of inclination (𝜶𝜶)

49
 Figure 22 PDE tube with negative angle of inclination (𝜶𝜶)

The initial conditions used for the detonation of this inclined tube are similar to those used in Case

1. At the time of writing this report, the author was unable to find any established data to support

the results obtained.

Figure 23 Initial conditions for PDE tube having positive inclination with pressure contour

Figure 24 Initial conditions for PDE tube having negative inclination with pressure contour

50
 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Constant Area Rectangular Tube

Figure 25 shows the pressure evolution of the detonation wave as it travels along the length

of the tube after the detonation is initiated from the head end of the tube. As the detonation matured

along the length of the tube, certain CJ and ZND trends started to emerge. These generated

outcome is then compared with benchmark literature.

Figure 25 Detonation wave propagation along the ideal PDE tube with Pressure contours

Pressure

For a lean mixture of hydrogen-air, the passage of the initial detonation pressure spike rise

occurred at 0.01 [mm] from the head end of the tube. This von Neumann spike pressure remained

around 27.23 [atm] before rapidly trailing off. This pressure spike indicates the maximum reaction

rate occurring at that location. However, this spike value observed is higher than the Vizcaino

(Vizcaino, 2013) model. The following figure displays the pressure distribution yielding ZND

51
model characteristics. It can be observed how the induction and reaction zones dramatically affects

the pressure in the region of burned gas.

Figure 26 ZND Pressure profile

Temperature

The temperature rises sharply to a peak value of 3500 [K] before trailing off to a constant

value of 2900 [K], showing similar trend as the pressure distribution. This high value of

temperature is observed at position 0.01 [m] from the head end of the tube. The figure below shows

the temperature distribution for ZND characteristics affected by the induction and reaction zones.

52
 Figure 27 ZND Temperature profile

Thus, it can be concluded that the one-step chemical reaction hydrogen –air mixture can

be used to simulate ZND model behavior.

CJ Velocity

CJ velocity is calculated by averaging the wave velocity measured at several different locations.

This is done by using simple kinematics where average velocity is displacement over total time

elapsed. The displacement values were selected with respect to the position of the peak pressure

wave. The resulting average of speeds from 0.1 [m] to 0.6 [m] away from the head end wall was

found to be approximately 2200 [m/s] (Table 3). The detonation velocity obtained by Vizcaino

(Vizcaino, 2013) is similar to the obtained results.

53
 Table 3 Wave velocity measurement
Distance [m] Flow Time [s] Velocity [m/s]

0.1 0.000049 2041

0.2 0.00009 2222

0.3 0.00014 2143

0.45 0.00019 2368

0.6 0.00027 2222

Average 2200 [m/s]

5.2 Simulation vs. NASA CEA

Theoretical detonation parameters were calculated using NASA CEA code (Bonnie &

Sanford, 2004) (Appendix C) to verify the simulation results. Hydrogen-air mixture is used with

equivalence ration (𝜙𝜙) of 1.0 at standard initial pressure and temperature conditions (input values

like those in Table 1). It is observed that the CJ parameters obtained using NASA CEA are

comparable with the current obtained values (Table 4).

54
 Table 4 CJ conditions
Detonation Parameters CFD NASA CEA

Pressure Ratio 𝑃𝑃2/𝑃𝑃1 18.25 15.5

at CJ point

Temperature 𝑇𝑇2/𝑇𝑇1 9.56 9.82

Ratio at CJ

point

CJ Detonation 𝑈𝑈𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 Case 1: 2200 1967.6 [m/s]

Velocity [m/s]

Comparing the simulations CJ values with theoretical values it was observed that

theoretical yields a -17.74 % difference for pressure, 2.71 % difference for temperature, and a -

12.19 % difference for detonation velocity. These percentage errors obtained are around the similar

values to the ones observed by Vizcaino (Vizcaino, 2013). Figure 26 and Figure 27 shows the

variation of physical properties following the ZND detonation trend explained in sections 1.2.4

and 1.2.5, thus further endorsing the results obtained.

5.3 Varying Area Tube

The following figures, Figures 28 and 29, show evolution of the detonation characteristics

for a tube having positive and negative inclination. The CJ and ZND trends were noted for each

angle of inclination.

55
Figure 28 Detonation wave propagation along the PDE tube with positive inclination showing pressure
contours

Figure 29 Detonation wave propagation along the PDE tube with negative inclination showing pressure
contours

56
Pressure

The value von Neumann spike pressure and the ZND pressure profile did not show much

change from those observed for Case 1, Section 5.1.1. However, it was noted that the value of the

detonation pressure decreased with increase in inclination angle (𝛼𝛼). The following table shows

the comparison in pressure for the straight tube and tube with inclination;

Table 5 Variations of Pressure in PDE tube with inclinations

Angle of inclination (𝛼𝛼) Detonation Pressure [MPa]

No inclination/ straight 1.6

tube

-1° 1.65

-2° 1.76

-3° 1.92

+1° 1.55

+2° 1.53

+3° 1.51

Thus, it can be seen that the decrease in pressure occurs when the area of tube is increased,

further leading to increase in the wave velocity.

57
Temperature

Even though, the detonation pressure showed variations with respect to the angle of

inclination (𝛼𝛼), the temperature profile remained more or less the same. This value was observed

to be around 3500 [K] similar to the value observed in Section 5.1.1.

CJ velocity

The CJ velocity is calculated in the similar manner as described in Section 5.1.1. The

following tables show the average waveform speed calculated for each angle of inclination.

Table 6 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =-3°

Distance [m] Flow Time [s] Velocity [m/s]

0.1 0.0000529 1890

0.2 0.00010 1818

0.3 0.000158 1898

0.45 0.00021 2143

0.6 0.000281 2135

Average 1977 [m/s]

58
 Table 7 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =-2°

Distance [m] Flow Time [s] Velocity [m/s]

0.1 0.000052 1923

0.2 0.0001072 1865

0.3 0.0001573 1907

0.45 0.0002073 2171

0.6 0.0002791 2150

Average 2003 [m/s]

Table 8 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =-1°

Distance [m] Flow Time [s] Velocity [m/s]

0.1 0.0000504 1980

0.2 0.00009 2000

0.3 0.0001455 2062

0.45 0.0002005 2244

0.6 0.0002755 2178

Average 2093 [m/s]

From the above tables it is observed that the average wave speed decreased from the originally

calculated one for a straight constant area tube. Furthermore, it is observed that this waveform

speed continues to decrease with decreasing angle of inclination.

59
 Table 9 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =+1°

Distance [m] Flow Time [s] Velocity [m/s]

0.1 0.00004 2500

0.2 0.000099 2002

0.3 0.000155 1935

0.45 0.0002 2250

0.6 0.00027 2222

Average 2182 [m/s]

Table 10 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =+2°

Distance [m] Flow Time [s] Velocity [m/s]

0.1 0.00004 2500

0.2 0.0000899 2225

0.3 0.00014 2143

0.45 0.000202 2228

0.6 0.000284 2113

Average 2242 [m/s]

60
 Table 11 Wave velocity measurement for 𝜶𝜶 =+3°

Distance [m] Flow Time [s] Velocity [m/s]

0.1 0.00004 2500

0.2 0.0000849 2356

0.3 0.00013 2308

0.45 0.000195 2308

0.6 0.000275 2182

Average 2331 [m/s]

Similarly, for positive inclination it is seen that the average wave speed increased from the

originally calculated straight tube wave form speed. Also, this waveform speed continues to

increase with increasing angle of inclination. Wave form arriving time

The results obtained from these simulations are analogous to the concept of converging

and diverging tube geometries discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.4. It is seen that, there is an

increase in flow velocity with an increase in the area of the channel. Likewise, there is a decrease

in the flow velocity with decrease in the area of the channel.

61
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

The theory behind detonation physics and pulse detonation engines was investigated. A

PDE simulation having 2-D axisymmetric one-step chemical mechanism for 1-D wave

propagation is modeled with a lean stochiometric hydrogen-air mixture. It was proven that both

the C-J conditions and ZND model could be successfully and accurately simulated using ASNSY

FLUENT. The CJ pressure, temperature and mass fraction were calculated theoretically, obtained

by the chemical equilibrium code NASA CEA. The observed C-J temperature, pressure, and

velocity were all within a 10% difference, when benchmarking the solutions to NASA’s CEA

results.

A study was done by varying the tube dimensions to understand the influence of

converging- diverging tube sections on detonation propagation and hence PDE performance.

Based on the results it can be concluded that, there is an increase in flow velocity with diverging

PDE tube section. Likewise, there is a decrease in the flow velocity with converging PDE tube

section. However, at the time of writing this report the author was unable to find any established

data to support these results.

It is known that the performance of an engine is best studied based on the thrust generated

and its associated specific impulse. As present the study was concluded based on the flow velocity

alone, for better conclusion it is recommended that other performance parameters also be

considered while studying the effects of converging-diverging PDE tube. These other performance

parameters can be obtained through multi-cycle detonations.

62
 Bibliography

5 A combustion wave in a premixed gas, the Chapman-Jouguet detonation wave. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.mech.kth.se/courses/5C1219/Hand_out_PDF/SG2219_NT_Lecture%205%20HT10.
pdf

Anderson, J. D. (2015). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Sixth Edition. University of Maryland: McGraw-

Hill Series in Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering .

Bonnie, J. M., & Sanford, G. (2004). CEAgui Chemical equilibrium with applications.Software Package,
Ver.1.0. NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH.

Coleburn, N. (1964). Chapman-Jouguet Pressures of Several Pure and Mixed Explosives. White Oak,
Maryland: US Naval Ordnance Laboratory.

Cooper, M. a. (July 2002). The Effect of Nozzles and Extensions on Detonation Tube Performance. AIAA
Paper 2002-3628.

Cooper, M. J. (2002). Direct Experimental Impulse Measurements for Detonation and Deflagrations.
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 18, No. 5, 1033-1041.

Dupri, G., Joannon, J., R, K., & Lee, J. (1990). UNSTABLE DETONATIONS IN THE NEAR-LIMIT REGIME IN
TUBES. Twenty-Third Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1813-1820.

Ebrahimi, H. a. (2002). “A Numerical Simulation of a Pulse Detonation Engine with Hydrogen Fuels.
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 18, No. 5, 1042-1048.

Eidelman, S. G. (1991). “Review of Propulsion Applications and Numerical Simulations of The Pulse
Detonation Engine Concept. Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 7, No. 6, 857-865.

Eidelman, S. G. (July 1990). “Air-Breathing Pulsed Detonation Engine Concept; A Numerical Study. AIAA
Paper 1990-2420.

Endo, T., & Fujiwara, T. (2002). A Simplified Analysis on a Pulse Detonation Engine Model. Trans. JApan
Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol 44, No.146, 217-222.

FLUENT. ( 2017). Computational Fluid Dynamics, Software Package, Ver.17.0, ANSYS.

Garg, A., & Dhiman, A. (October, 2014). Innovative Trends in Pulse Detonation Engine, its Challenges and
Suggested Solutions. Journal of Basic and Applied Engineering Research, Volume 1, Number 4,
pp.6-10.

Glassman, I., & Yetter, R. A. (2008). Combustion, Fourth Edition. Elsevier Inc. .

Gopalakrishnan, N. (2017). Numerical Simulation of Flow in Fluid Valves in Rotating Detonation Engines.
The University of Texas at Arlington.

He, X. &. (2003). Numerical simulation of pulse detonation engine phenomena. J. Sci. Comput, 19(1-3).

Helman, D. S. (June 1986). Detonation Pulse Engine. AIAA Paper 1986-1683.

63
Hinkey, J. B. (July 1995). Shock Tube Experiments for the Development of a Hydrogen-Fueled Pulse
Detonation Engine. AIAA PAper 1995-2578.

Kailasanath, K. (2009-631). Research on pulse detonation combustion systems -a status report. AIAA J.,
2009, doi: 10.2514/6.2009-631.

Kailasanath, K. (n.d.). A review of research on pulse detonation engines. Report. Naval research
laboratory.

Korovin, L. L. (1981). Combustion of Natural Gas in a Commercial Detonation Reactor. Fizika Gor. Vzryva,
Vol. 17, No. 3, 86.

Krzycki, L. (1962). Performance Characteristics of an Intermittent-Detonation Device. U.S. Naval

Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, CA: NAVWEPS Report 7655.

Lam, M., Tillie, D., T., L., & B., M. (2004). Pulse Detonation Engine Technology: An Overview. The
University of British Columbia.

Lee, J. H. (2008). The Detonation Phenomenon. McGill University: Cambridge University Press.

Lim, W. H. (2010-12). Gasdynamic Inlet Isolation in Rotating Detonation Engine. Monterey, CA: Naval
Postgraduate School.

Ma, F. (2003). Thrust Chamber Dynamics and Propulsive Performance of Airbreathing Pulse Detonation
Engines. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.

Majithia, A. (2011). Investigating the Fundamentals of Liquid- Fuelled Pulse Detonation Engines. Cardiff
University: ProQuest LLC.

Nichollas, J. W. (1957). intermittent Detonation as a Thrust -Producing Mechanism. Jet Propulsion,

Vol.27, No.5, 534-541.

Rouf, H. (2003). Parametric Study for Performance Optimization of Pulse Detonation Engines.
Bozeman,Monatana: Montana State University.

Shchelkin, K. (1940). Soviet Journal of Technical Physics, Vol. 10, 823-827.

Sinibaldi, J. B. (July 2001). Ignition Effects on Deflagration-toDetonation Transition Distance in Gaseous

Mixtures. AIAA Paper 2000-3466.

Srihari, P., & Mallesh, M. A. (2015). Numerical Study of Pulse Detonation Engine with One-step Overall
Reaction Model. Defence Science Journal, 265-271.

T., B., & G., P. (1995). Pulse Detonation Engine Theory and Concepts. The American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

Thattai, A. (2010). A Validation Study for Turbulent Premixed Flame Propagation in Closed Vessels. Delft
University of Technology.

Valli, D. M., & Jindal, T. (April 2014). Pulse Detonation Engine: Parameters. International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Vol. 3, Issue 4,, 11229- 11237.

64
Vizcaino, J. (2013). Investigation of Pulse Detonation Engines; Thory, Design and Analysis. Daytona,
Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical ?University, Scholarly Commons.

Watanabe, K. &. (2006-556). Numerical simulation of pulse detonation engine with a thermally perfect
overall reaction model. AIAA Paper, 2006, doi: 10.2514/6.2006-556.

Wu, Y., & Lee, J. H. (April 2015). Stability of spinning detonation waves. Combustion and Flame.

Yungster, S. (2003). Analysis of Nozzle Effects on Pulse Detonation Engine Performance. 41st Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, Nevada: The American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc.

65
APPENDIX

Appendix A

1. FLUENT launcher setup

66
2. Solver Setup

3. Solution Method Setup

67
4. Pressure Outlet Boundary Conditions

68
Appendix B

NASA CEA output file

69