38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit 7-10 July 2002, Indianapolis, Indiana

AIAA 2002-4073

TURBOFAN ENGINE THRUST AUGMENTATION WITH PULSE DETONATION AFTBURNERS - NOZZLE INFLUENCE -

M. A. Mawid' & T. W. Park'

Engineering Research and Analysis Company

B. Sekar2 & C. Arana'

Turbine Engine Division Air Force Research Laboratory Wright-Patterson AFI3, OH 45433
ABSTRACT
A preliminary assessment of the influence of a nozzle upon the performance of a turbofan engine with a conceptual pulse detonation afterburner design configuration has been made in this study. The proposed conceptual pulse detonation afterburner was conceived as an integral part of the turbofan engine core and as such it would always be turned on. The same turbofan engine performance was previously computed [ 13 but without a nozzle. A sea level static power condition was considered and the engine performance was computed as a function of the nozzle exit to throat area ratio. Three-dimensional CFD simulations with a five-step chemistry model for JP-8 fuel were carried out in the present study. The CFD results demonstrated that by attaching a simple straight divergent nozzle to the pulse detonation afterburner, an improved ideal engine performance was obtained as compared to the engine performance without a nozzle. In particular, the CFD results showed that for a nozzle area ratio of 1.7 and higher, the engine ideal performance with a pulse detonation afterburner was better than the same turbofan engine but with a conventional afterburner. However, due to lack of experimental data, the computed ideal performance of the turbofan engine with a pulse detonation afterburner can not be quantified. This warrants experimental investigations under similar turbofan power conditions. In addition, the impact of the pulse
,

detonation afterburner operation upon the engine core compressor, combustor and turbine has not been assessed in the present study.

NOMENCLATURE
A
A/B
Favg

= constant cross-sectional area

FPR F f/a

= afterburner = average thrust = fan pressure ratio = cycle frequency, Hz = fuel-air ratio

OPR P
P(t) Phg pps
R

= overall pressure ratio

= static pressure = unsteady pressure at the tube wall = pressure acting on left side of thrust wall
= pound per

second

= nozzle radius

SFC Tcycle

= specific fuel consumption = cycle time

Tdetonation= detonation time

Tfill T,, Tpwge t

U Yi

= filling time
= mass averaged initial mixture temperature = purging time = time
= axial

Tinitiation initiation time =

velocity

= mass fraction

= mixture equivalence ratio qthrust = thrust ratio P = mixture density w = time-averaged dummy variable

' Member AIAA

Associate Fellow AlAA Copyright 0 2002 by the authors. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. 1
This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.

Subscripts

amb cycle e f
W

=ambient = one pulse/cycle = nozzle exit = fuel = passage end wall

were detonated with the bypass stoichiometric P-8-air mixture in the pulse detonation passages. However, the predicted performance fell short as compared to the performance of the same turbofan engine but with a conventional deflagration combustion afterburner [11. The previously predicted low performance of the hybrid turbofan-pulse detonation afterburner was attributed to the reduction in the initial mixture fuel-air ratio due to the core flow products and to the absence of an engine nozzle. In an effort to improve the engine performance, a divergent straight nozzle was attached to engine afterburner. The objective of this study is, therefore, to investigate the effects of a simple straight divergent nozzle upon the performance of the hybrid turbofan-pulse detonation afterburner. To this end, three different nozzle exit to throat area ratios, A/A* (i.e., divergent angles 8", 14" and 25") were considered and the hybrid engine performance was predicted. The hybrid engine performance was obtained for 99% of the core flow products premixed with the bypass JP-%air mixture. The results showed that as the engine area ratio, N A * , was increased, the hybrid engine performance exceeded that of the same turbofan engine but with a conventional afterburner. The results also indicated that a lower performance of the hybrid engine can be obtained when a steady-state-like method was used to calculate the engine thrust as will be shown later. No other nozzle shapes were considered in this study. The analysis approach, we used to reassess concept performance with a divergent nozzle, is given in the next section, which is followed by sections on AFRL pulse detonation experiment and modeling efforts, analysis of the pulse detonation afterburner, results, and finally conclusion.

INTRODUCTION A hybrid turbofan-pulse detonation afterburner engine concept was introduced in a previous study [l]. In that concept concentric annular passages are placed in the afterburner volume as shown schematically in Fig. 1. A rotary valve design type is attached to the engine high or low spool shaft through a gear box. The rotary valve function is to regulate the filling and blowdown processes of the pulse detonation annular passages such that continuous flow through the engine occurs. In this design concept, the bypass duct air flow was assumed to be mixed stoichiometrically with a JP-8 fuel in the bypass duct. The vitiated engine core flow was assumed to be mixed with the bypass JP-8-air mixture inside the detonation passages during the filling process. The concentric annular passages were divided into pulse detonation and core flow passages such that only a predetermined fraction of the core flow would mix with the bypass JP-8air mixture inside the detonation passages. The rest of the core flow products would pass through the core flow passages during the filling and detonation processes. The sizes of the detonation and core flow passages were not optimized for best performance. The core flow passages were assumed to always be open by circular slots in the rotary valve (not shown in Fig. lb). When 100% of the core flow is allowed into the pulse detonation passages, the core flow passages may then be used as cooling passages. As shown in Fig. 1 , the concept performance was assessed without an engine nozzle by computing its thrust, specific thrust and specific fuel consumptions (SFC) as a function of the engine core products fraction. The computed performance results showed that the best performance of the concept can be obtained when 95% of the core products

ANALYSIS APPROACH:

In this afterburner pulse detonation design concept, the turbofan engine core was assumed to remain unaffected by placing detonation

annular passages in the rear of the engine (volume between LP turbine exit station and nozzle). In the present study, a divergent straight nozzle with three different angles was included. The angles and the corresponding area ratios NA* are a=8",A/A*=1.38, a=14", A/A*=1.71, and a=25" and A/A*=2.49. The bypass duct JP8-air mixture and core flows were assumed to mix inside the detonation annular passages as they flow into the passages during the filling process. Note here that the bypass JP-8-air mixture is not allowed to mix with the core flow outside the detonation annular passages to prevent autoignition of taking place. This can be done through a special grooving design in the rotary valve. Moreover, the filling times of the core flow and bypass JP-8-air mixture must be less than the autoignition time such that no combustion would take place in the passages during the filling process. The afterburner detonation cycle consists of several fundamental processes that occur during the cycle. In the present afterburner design concept, the detonation annular passages were assumed to have 18 sectors with a 20-degree angle. Detonation combustion was assumed to take place in these sectors in an alternate manner. Alternate afterburner pulse detonation sectors were first charged with a JP-8-air-core-products mixture. These sectors were then closed (sealed) by the rotary valve and ignition energy was deposited at the closed valve end to initiate detonation. Note here that while some of the pulse detonation sectors were being charged with the JP-8-air-core-products mixture, 1 % of the core products were allowed to flow through the core flow annular passages, which were always open (Fig. la). The initiated detonation waves travel through the mixture to compress and bum the mixture. The detonation waves finally exit the passages and the burned gases are expelled out into the common nozzle for further expansion. Once the pressure acting on the closed end wall of the passages (valve face) becomes less than the new charge pressure, the rotary valve is then opened again and the pulse detonation passages sectors are refilled with a new JP-8-air-core-products mixture while some

adjacent sectors are being fired. The thrust produced in the afterburner pulse passages is due to the pressure differential acting upon the nozzle exit plane and to the momentum imparted to the burned JP-8-air-core-products mixture as it is accelerated by the detonation waves. A number of modeling approaches can be used to predict the ideal gross thrust performance of the present pulse detonation afterburner turbofan engine concept. These modeling approaches vary in complexity from simple control volume-based to three-dimensional CFD with finite rate chemical kinetics. While simple control volume-based analysis are useful to cany out parametric studies and predict basic performance, more accurate and realistic performance estimates can be made by using multidimensional CFD analysis. CFD will, therefore, be used to predict the performance of the present pulse detonation afterburner turbofan engine concept. However, the performance of the turbofan engine with the conventional afterburner will be obtained by using cycle analysis, which will be briefly given again in the next section.

Thermodynamic Engine Cycle Analysis:

An advanced military turbofan engine cycle was first selected. This advanced cycle parameters are given in Table 1. The performance numbers were computed using an in-house cycle code. Losses for the engine components were considered through realistic components efficiencies. This turbofan engine cycle was not optimized for a particular mission. It rather represents a future Air Force goal with a conventional afterburner andor a pulse detonation afterburner. Table 2 contains the cycle data at the inlet of the combustor, which will be used to compute the flow conditions at the exit of LP turbine.

As mentioned above, the CFD modeling approach will first be used to model the AFRL pulse detonation experiment [2, 31 and then comparisons between the CFD predictions and

the AFRL experimental data for hydrogenpropane-air detonations will be made as will be described in the next section.

CFD Analysis of AFRL Pulse Detonation Hydropen-Propane-Air Experiments:

The AFRL pulse detonation experiment [2, 31 consisted of a 2 inch in diameter and 36 inches in length single tube, rotary valve, spark ignition plug and a mixer. In this experiment the detonation tube is filled with a hydrogen- and/or propane-air mixture at atmospheric pressure, temperature and various mixture strengths. Full and partial tube filling and purging processes can be studied in this experiment. Thrust, ISP and specific fuel consumption can all be measured as a function of the mixture equivalence ratio, tube cycle time (fiequency) and filling fraction. The H2-air chemistry was modeled using a single step reaction model of the form

atm and 0.0, respectively. The mixture equivalence ratio was unity. The flow in the PDE and dump tank was modeled as unsteady and viscous flow. Viscous effects are accounted for here to allow for limited wave-wall interaction. Though the objective here is not to investigate viscous effects on wave shape, but rather to account for as much physics in the simulation as possible. The numerical model employed in this investigation was based upon a commercial code STAR-CD [4]. The code was previously modified to allow for multi-step chemical reactions. The chemical reactions were solved for using a stiff solver and the effect of chemistry was then coupled to STAR-CD through the use of an operators-split-like method. This procedure allows chemical reactions to be integrated by appropriate and efficient techniques including subcycling the chemistry source terms. The conservation equations for mass, momentum and energy were solved. Second order temporal and spatial (MARS) schemes were used for the unsteady, convective and diffusion terms, respectively. Special numerical treatment of the chemistry source terms for the global kinetics was not used for resolving the wave speed accurately. For the global one step kinetic model, it is important to use an averaged temperature in the detonation wave front to control both the temperature and pressure rise. This procedure is equivalent to the use of a limiter function to slow down chemistry such that excessive unphysical heat release may be prevented [5-IO]. In the present study, the temperature predicted by the analysis was used and no temperature averaging across the wave was performed. The thrust produced in the afterburner pulse passages is due to the pressure differential acting upon the interior faces of the sectors and to the momentum imparted to the burned JP-8-air-coreproducts mixture as it is accelerated by the detonation waves. The time-averaged gross thrust due to the pressure force acting upon the closed end wall of the passages is given as

where the pre-exponential factor is 5.5 x lo9 M.Kg.sec and the activation energy is 5 x IO Jkrno1e.K. The pulse detonation tube was connected to a large size dump tank @e., 3 times as large the diameter and length of tube) to minimize the effect of the downstream pressure boundary condition. The CFD computations were two-dimensional. The computational grid spacing in the axial and radial directions was 0.02 and 0.5 mm respectively. Grid-independent analyses were carried out to insure that the computational results are grid independent. Initially, the pulse detonation tube was assumed to be filled with a stoichiometric mixture of H2-air. The dump tank was assumed to contain only air. To initiate the combustion process, one row of computational cells was considered to represent the ignition source such as a spark igniter or a laser system. The ignition cells were set at a higher temperature and pressure at the start of the computations. The initial temperature, pressure and Mach number used in the present computations were 298 K, 1

PD passage length Tfill = Fuel/air mixture inlet velocity The time-averaged gross thrust due to the exhaust stream momentum is given as

(6)

The products purging time can be calculated using the relation;

where Pw(t) and P,(t) are the predicted instantaneous unsteady pressures at the sector closed end wall and at nozzles exit. v,(t) and pe(t) are the predicted instantaneous velocity and mixture density at the nozzle exit. The timeaveraged total gross thrust is computed using,
)gross = [Favg )wall

The detonation time may be evaluated using the relation; PD passage length Tdetonation = Absolute detonation velocity (8) The detonation initiation time can be estimated using deflagration to detonation transition time. However, this time interval is usually small compared to the filling time and as such, it may be set to zero. The cycle time, needed to calculate the averaged thrust, can be computed by using the CFD calculations, with the exception of the filling time, which can be computed from Eq. (6).

without nozzle

(Favg )gross

=(F

avg exit

(3)
.

with nozzle

The time-averaged total net thrust, however, is computed by

- t*le

(Favg Let, total

(Favg )gross

Pdragdt)A wall (4)

CFD Results for AFRL Experiment

The predicted wall pressure-time history was numerically integrated to obtain an estimate of the thrust produced. Figure 2 shows a comparison between the predicted and measured thrust as a function of the frequency for H2-air mixture. It is seen that good agreement between the predictions and data exists. This provides confidence in our CFD results for reasonable estimates of pulse detonation afterburner performance. Further CFD predictions were made using propane fuel and the results were compared with the AFRL propane data as shown in Fig. 3. It should be noted that a one-step global reaction model was used to represent the propane chemistry and is given as [111

- ((PYCle

Dramdt)A,,it

where Pdmg the pressure acting on the left side is of the thrust wall (left side of valve face) during detonation and purging. Dramis the ram drag, which is neglected in the present study, since a sea level static power condition was considered. The cycle time, Tcycle, defined as the time is required to fill the detonation passages with a premixed fuel/air/core products mixture, detonation initiation time, time for the detonation to exit the sector and purge time to reduce the sector pressure to the refill pressure level and is given as;

The filling time can be calculated by;

where the reaction rate constants are given as A = 4.836 x IO9 and E = 1.256 x IO8 N.mkmo1e.K and

the fuel and oxygen exponents are [C3H8Jo.'and [02]'.65 respectively. Figure 3 clearly shows that reasonable agreement between the predicted and measured thrust still exists, which provides further confidence in our CFD tool to make reasonable performance estimates for the pulse detonation afterburner.

adequate to provide independent results.

accurate

and

grid-

CFD Analysis of the Hvbrid Turbofan Engine

A schematic of the part modeled for obtaining the pulse detonation afterburner performance is shown in Figs. 4a and 4b. Note here that the dimensions given in Figs. 4a and 4b were obtained from an in-house flow path code for determining engine dimensions. As mentioned previously, that the pulse detonation annular passages were divided into 18 sectors, each with 20 degrees. However, due to flow periodicity, a single 3-degree pie sector was considered. The 3-degree pie sector is attached to a divergent straight nozzle that is in turn attached to a large dump tank, which was 2.5 times as large as the pulse detonation passage and nozzle in the axial direction. The azimuthal and radial dimensions of the dump tank are 9 degrees and 1.5 times as large as the nozzle exit diameter. The purpose of attaching the dump tank was for proper treatment of the exit pressure boundary condition. By connecting the engine nozzle to a significantly longer dump tank, the ambient pressure may be imposed at the exit of the dump tank. In reality, the pressure acting at the exit of the nozzle is a function of time and this pressure could substantially vary from the ambient pressure, during the filling stage, to Von Neumann pressure when the detonation wave arrives at the nozzle exit. Figure 5 shows the computational grid used to model the 3-degree pie sector, nozzle and dump tank. The grid was three-dimensional in both the pulse detonation sector, nozzle, and the dump tank. The total number of computational cells was 1,090,764 cells and cell spacing varied in the axial and radial directions from 0.1 mm to 2 mm in the dump tank. This computational grid resolution was believed to be sufficiently

The pulse detonation pie sectors were assumed to be initially filled with a mixture of JP-8-air (bypass duct flow) and core flow products. The engine nozzle and dump tank were assumed to contain only air. Three different divergent nozzles were considered. These angles were 8", 14" and 25". The corresponding nozzle exit area to throat nozzle area ratios were 1.38, 1.71 and 2.49. In order to obtain the initial composition of the mixture inside the detonation sectors, knowledge of the core flow products composition at the exit of the low pressure turbine (LPT) and exit of the bypass duct were needed. The conditions given in Table 2 at the inlet of the combustor were used to obtain the equilibrium composition at the exit of the combustor by using the NASA-CEA equilibrium code [16]. The turbine coolant air flow was then added to the combustor exit flow to obtain the flow conditions and composition at the exit of the LPT as given in Table 4. This core flow composition at the exit of LPT was then assumed to be mixed with the engine bypass duct JP-&air flow. The bypass air flow was assumed to be stoichiometrically mixed with prevaporized JP-8 fuel in the bypass duct, Table 4 (see spray bars in Fig. la). The initial mixture fuel-air ratio, equivalence ratio, composition (mass fraction), pressure, and temperature inside the pulse detonation pie sectors for 95% fraction of the core flow products are given in Table 5. The initial mixture pressure was calculated as an averaged pressure whereas the temperature, and Mach number were calculated as mass flowaveraged values. One advantage of increasing core flow fraction on the initial mixture condition is to increase its temperature and Mach number, which can be quite beneficial for initiating a detonation wave and decreasing filling time respectively. However, the decrease in the mixture strength, Table 5 , may have a more profound impact upon the initial mixture detonative limits, such that no transition from deflagration to detonation can occur for indirect

initiation. For this reason, the initial mixture composition and conditions given in Table 5 were used to obtain the detonation properties using the NASA CEA equilibrium code [ 121. The purpose here was to ascertain that the initial composition will support detonative combustion.

momentum increase in the mixture could be important for additional thrust production. The detonation properties, obtained from the NASA equilibrium code, shown in Figs. 6-9, demonstrated that when 95% of the core flow products were mixed with the stoichiometric bypass duct JP-8-air, the new mixture composition still allows for detonative combustion. The equilibrium analysis, thus, establishes the detonability of the initial mixture in the pulse detonation afterburner for 95% of the core flow products and for the cycle parameters considered in the present analysis. It should, however, be mentioned that mixture inhomogeneities and incorrect chemical reaction rates in a real pulse detonation afterburner can result in different detonation properties than those predicted by the equilibrium and the ZND theory. For this reason, the JP-8-air-coreproducts mixture chemistry was modeled using a five-step reaction mechanism given as, 4 C12H23 + 47 0
2

In the classical Zeldovich - Von Neumann Doring, ZND theory, the detonation wave structure is composed of a planar shock wave moving with the detonation velocity. A short distance behind the shock, the Von Neumann pressure spike is located, which is immediately followed by a deflagration combustion. The distance between the leading shock wave and the initiation of the deflagration combustion is termed the ignition lag. The combustion products temperature rises, the pressure and density fall until they reach the upper Chapman-Jouguet (CJ) values and the chemical reactions then attain equilibrium. As the detonation wave travels through the mixture, a set of expansion waves further reduce the past combustion pressure to a lower value at the closed end wall of the detonation passage due to the zero velocity condition at the wall. Figures 6-9 show the computed variation of the physical parameters of the detonation waves as a function of the fraction of the core flow products. Figures 6 and 7 clear exhibit the substantial drop in the C-J pressure spikes and detonation velocity as the core flow products fraction is increased from 0% to 95%. The implication is that the instantaneous thrust produced in the pulse detonation afterburner from the C-J pressure decreases as the core flow fraction is increased. It should, however, be noted here that the increase in the cycle frequency as a function of the core flow fraction could offset the reduction in the C-J pressure and its impact on the time-averaged thrust. As the fraction of the core flow products is increased from 0% to 95%, the C-Js pressure drops by more than a factor of two as shown in Fig. 6. The same behavior is reflected in the C-Js temperature. However, the C-Js Mach number to initial mixture Mach number ratio, M/M1 is seen to increase as the core flow fraction is increased as shown in Fig. 9. This indicates that the

-+ 48 CO + 46 H20

(Rl)

C02 + H ++ CO + H20 2

(R4)

where C12H23 was assumed to represent the JP-8 fuel. The chemical parameters such the preexponential factors, A, activation energy, E, and fuel and oxygen exponents are given in Table 6. It should be mentioned here that NASA CEA [ 121 code cannot predict Von-Neumann pressure spikes, since they depend on the ignition delay time and finite rate kinetics.

As indicated above, initially, the pulse detonation afterburner sectors were assumed to be filled with a mixture of JP-8-air-core-products (only 95% fraction of core flow was considered here). To initiate the combustion process, two rows of computational cells were considered to represent the ignition source such as a spark

igniter or a laser system (i.e., direct initiation). The cells were filled with JP-&air combustion products at equilibrium and at a pressure and temperature of 33 atm and 3,300 K respectively. The initial temperature, pressure, velocity, and mixture composition are those given in Table 5 for 95% of the core flow fiaction which was assumed to be mixed with the stoichiometric bypass duct JP-8-air mixture. The cycle frequency was 207 Hz. The flow in the pulse detonation sectors, nozzle, and dump tank was modeled as unsteady three-dimensional viscous flows. Also the numerical model employed in this investigation was based upon a commercial code "STAR-CD" [4]. The CFD results and discussion for the afterburner pulse detonation with a nozzle will be given next.

closed end wall exhibits a sharp rise initially due to the direct initiation method used here. However, due to the no slip velocity condition at the wall, the pressure fluctuates for some time after which it levels off until the detonation wave exits the nozzle. At this time, more expansion waves are generated to lower the pressure at the wall. The predicted peak pressure at the nozzle throat is also seen to be slightly affected by the increase in the nozzle divergent angle. Once again this is in agreement with the ZND model and indicates that the flow has reached the C-J conditions for which the flow local conditions are such that M=l in the wave frame of reference. The predicted pressures time histories at the nozzle throat, however, exhibit a shock pressure-like behavior for the 8" and 14" nozzle angles when the pressure downstream of the throat is higher than that at the throat. For the 25" nozzle angle case, this shock-like behavior is not predicted, which is indicative of the occurrence of adequate flow expansion in the nozzle such that no rise in the throat pressure takes place again. In fact, when the peak pressure at the nozzle exit is higher than the wall pressure, the shock-like behavior at the nozzle throat occurs as shown in Figs. 10-12. It is seen when the nozzle angle is 25", the predicted peak pressure at the nozzle exit is about the same as the wall pressure. Under such a condition, no shock-like behavior at the nozzle throat occurs. The predicted pressure behavior at the nozzle exit also exhibits a mild pressure rise initially, followed by a pressure decrease and then another sharp rise. As the detonation wave is expelled outside the nozzle and purging of the products begins, nozzle exit pressure decreases rapidly in time. It is also noticeable that the pressure at the closed end wall of the afterburner slowly responds to the flow changes at the nozzle throat as well as exit. For example, at the time when the pressures at the nozzle throat and exit have dropped by more than 90% of their peak values, the pressure at closed end has not yet felt these changes. In fact, these findings demonstrate that the only criterion to refill the afterburner is when the pressure at the wall is less than the filling pressure and as a result

CFD RESULTS
In an effort to demonstrate the impact of flow expansion in a divergent straight nozzle, various nozzle angles need to be considered. However, due to volume and weight constraints, only three nozzle angles were considered in the present analysis as given above. Results from the previous study [I] for zero angle (A/A*=l) will not be given here. Note here that for the zero angle case, the thrust was previously computed using Eq. (1) and Eq. (4) above for which the internal forces are due to the pressure force acting on the valve face behind the detonation wave. For nozzle divergent angles of 8", 14" and 25O, Eq. (2) and Eq. (4) were utilized to compute the thrust. Figures 10-12 show the predicted pressuretime histories at closed end (valve face), nozzle throat, and nozzle exit, respectively. At the nozzle exit, the predicted pressures at three different radial locations are shown in Figs. 10-12. It is seen that as divergent nozzle angle is increased fiom 8" to 25", the pressure at the closed end wall is predicted to be insensitive to the changes in nozzle angle. This is consistent with the ZND detonation combustion model in which the flow Mach leaving the detonation is unity &e., choked flow) for the most part of the detonation and purging processes. Moreover, the predicted pressure at

the cycle time is not affected by how much flow expansion occurs inside the engine nozzle. Figure 13-15 display the axial velocity-time histories at the nozzle exit at three different radial locations and for the three nozzle angles. It is seen that the peak axial velocity OCCUTS close to engine centerline (i.e., R=0.8 in.). This peak velocity is also predicted to be somewhat unaffected by the increase in the nozzle angle. However, for the 25" nozzle angle case, substantial fluctuations in velocity occur at different radial locations and immediately after the detonation wave is expelled out, as shown in Fig. 15. The 8 O and 14" nozzle angles cases are predicted to exhibit somewhat similar velocity behavior at the nozzle exit. As expected, the lowest velocity occurs near the nozzle wall due to viscous effects. Figure 16-18 show the density-time histories at the nozzle exit and for three different radial locations and for the three nozzle angles respectively. Consistent with the pressure and velocity profiles, the 25" nozzle angle case is seen to have a lower density peak than the other two nozzle angle cases. This is indicative of more flow expansion as compared to the other two nozzle angles cases. The peak density for all the nozzle angles is predicted to occur near the nozzle centerline as was the case for the pressure and velocity. This behavior is indicative of a strong coupling between the instantaneous mass flow rate and instantaneous velocity at the nozzle exit which is a characteristic of unsteady propulsion systems.

due to the radial variations in the flow properties, area-based averaging was used. The pressure, density and velocity at the nozzle throat and exit were first time-averaged at the three-different radial locations using the following relations.

(9)
The time-averaged quantities were then averaged using area-based averaging given as

- = Anozzle j0 Rnozz'e W(r). 27trdr v

( 10)

CFD-BASED THRUST COMPUTATIONS

From the pressure, velocity, and density timehistories presented above, it was apparent that significant fluctuations in time occurred. The peak pressure and density were seen to dissipate fast at nozzle exit as compared to the velocity peak. A high velocity was seen to persist during most of the detonation and purging processes. In order to predict the afterburner pulse detonation performance, time-averaging of the density, pressure and velocity exit was needed. In addition,

Using the above equations, pressure, density and Mach number at the nozzle throat and exit were computed as a function of the nozzle exit to throat area ratio and are given in Figs. 19-21. It is seen that as area ratio is increased, the averaged pressures at the nozzle throat and exit decrease. This indicates that flow expansion increases as the area ratio is increased as expected. For the three nozzle area ratios considered in present analysis, the exit nozzle averaged pressure is predicted to be higher than the ambient pressure (i.e. P,h=14.7 psia). This implies that the nozzle flow was underexpanded and further expansion will take place outside the engine nozzle. It should be pointed out here that the instantaneous pressures at the nozzle exit after the detonation wave is expelled out were all about the same, as shown in Figs. 10-12. The pressure profiles differed mainly by the peak values at the nozzle exit, which led to variations in the averaged pressures with the nozzle area ratios. The computed averaged density is also seen to decrease as the area ratio is increased, as shown in Fig. 20. This is consistent with the flow expansion behavior in the nozzle. The nozzle exit Mach number is, however, seen to decrease for the nozzle area ratio of 2.49 (i.e., nozzle angle = 25") as shown in Fig. 21 but the flow is still supersonic. The axial velocity-time history, Fig. 15, clearly showed the substantial decrease near the nozzle wall. This is due to flow divergence in which the magnitude of the radial component is

increased with increasing the nozzle area ratio. Note here that the axial velocity component was used in computing exit Mach number and thrust. Figure 21 also exhibits that the flow Mach number at the throat is near unity, which is indicative of sonic line movement. For the nozzle area ratio of 1.71 (i.e., nozzle angle = 14"), the sonic line was predicted to occur at the nozzle throat. Whereas for the other two area ratios, 1.38 and 2.49, the sonic line moved slightly downstream and upstream of the nozzle throat respectively. These findings reinforce our earlier observation that the afterburner pressures at the nozzle throat and closed end wall are largely unaffected by the nozzle area ratio. The implication is that the afterburner closed end pressure dictates the time for refilling. The total time-averaged gross thrust as a function of the nozzle area ratio was computed using Eq. (2). Due to the radial variations in the density, pressure and velocity at the nozzIe exit plane, Eq. (2) was applied in such a manner as to include the effect of the radial variations in the thrust computations. For example, density, pressure and velocity time variations at the first radial location were integrated in time using Eq.

Fig. 22 was calculated using the following equation,

where mair and mhel are the total engine air and fuel flows, respectively and were given by the Brayton cycle analysis. It can clearly be seen that when Eq. (1 1) was used to compute the thrust, small discernible variations occurred as the nozzle area ratio was increased. In other words, the nozzle area ratio does not impact the nozzle thrust, which is inconsistent with the basic nozzle flow fundamentals. However, when Eq. (2) was used, large discernible thrust increase occurred with increasing nozzle area ratio. The thrust comparison between the pulse detonation afterburner and the same turbofan engine but with a conventional afterburner revealed that in order for the pulse detonation afterburner to have a better thrust performance, a divergent straight nozzle with an area ratio above 1.7 is required. Larger nozzle area ratios, as shown in Fig. 22, can provide higher thrust than the conventional turbofan with a conventional afterburner. However, as the nozzle area ratio is increased, engine volume and weight will increase and that could potentially offset the performance improvement of the pulse detonation afterburner over the conventional one. Figures 23 and 24 show that high specific thrust and low specific fuel consumption can be obtained fi-om the pulse detonation afterburner as the nozzle area ratio is increased as compared to the conventional turbofan engine. However, engine weight studies must be conducted to determine engine thrust to weight ratio performance as the nozzle area ratio is increased. The difference in the thrust computations using Eq. (2) versus Eq. (1 1) can be explained on the basis of the existence of strong correlation between the nozzle exit velocity and the instantaneous mass flow rate which is a characteristic of explosive waves [ 13-171. This means that a thrust ratio can be defined to

(2) with the nozzle area being n R i . For the second radial location, the nozzle area was

n(R; - R t ) and so on. Therefore Eq. (2) was

applied to the three different radial locations and the resultant total thrust force was the sum of these thrust forces. Having computed the total gross thrust, the engine specific thrust and specific fuel consumption (SFC) can be calculated using the cycle air flow, core and bypass fuel flows. Note here that in computing the SFC, the sum of the bypass and core fuel flows was used as given in Tables 1 and 4. Figures 22-24 show the predicted total gross thrust, specific thrust and specific fuel consumption as a function of the nozzle area ratio. The performance quantities fi-om Brayton cycle analysis for the same turbofan engine cycle but with a conventional afterburner are also plotted on the same figures for a comparison purpose. The steady-state-like averaged gross thrust shown in

10

compare unsteady pulse detonation engines with steady-state engines. The thrust ratio may be expressed as the ratio of Eq. (2) to Eq. (1 l), given as

different methods. In the first method, we used the following equation,

-pe (t)Ve (t)Aedt

ni =

A nozzle

Tcycle

27rrdr (13)

Equation (12) can be used to compare the pulse detonation afterburner with a conventional afterburner having the same nozzle exit averaged , incoming m,ir, and injected mhel . velocity Figure 25 shows the predicted thrust ratio, q t h s t , plotted against the nozzle area ratio. It can be seen that as the nozzle area ratio is increased, the thrust ratio is increased. Its value is always above unity, which is indicative of the higher thrust produced by the unsteady pulse detonation afterburner.

In the second method, Eqs. (9) and (10) were used to calculate time and area-averaged De and

v,

ve

separately. The % was then computed by using the following equation

It can be seen that different averaged mass flow rates can result based on the methodology employed to average the variables. This is due to the fact that time averaging of the product of pe(t) and Ve(t) is not the same as the product of the time-averaged

The strong effect of the instantaneous mass flow rate upon the thrust production can be further demonstrated by plotting the instantaneous mass flow rate of the mixture at the nozzle exit as shown in Figs. 26-28 for different nozzle area ratios. It is seen that significant variations occur during the detonation and purging processes. As the detonation wave reaches the nozzle exit, a sharp rise in the mass flow rate takes place, followed by substantial fluctuations. When the pressure at the end wall begins to decrease, less fluctuations in the mass flow rate arise. The peak mass flow rate occurs near the nozzle centerline (i.e., R1=0.8 in.) for all the nozzle area ratios considered. This is consistent with nozzle divergent flow development as the viscous boundary layer grows. The predicted sharp rise in the mass flow rate is believed to be responsible for the higher thrust generation by the pulse detonation afterburner than its steady-state counterpart. In fact, time and area averaging of the predicted mass flow rate time histories of Figs. 2628 were camed out as a function of the nozzle area ratio and compared to the incoming cycle total fuel and air flow rates (Tables 1 and 4) as shown in Fig. 29. In Fig. 29, the time and areaaveraged mass flow rate was computed in two

Pe

and

ve.
(15)

Equation (13) should, therefore, be used to compute the averaged nozzle exit mass flow rate as was the case for computing the thrust by using Eq. (2). Figure 29 shows that the averaged mass flow rate is not equal to the cycle mass flow rate value, which appears to be controversial at first glance. Two important observations can, however, be made. First of all, in computing the nozzle exit mass flow rate, the nozzle exit area was used, which increases with increasing N A * and therefore % was increased. Secondly, since pulse detonation afterburner operates in an unsteady blast type mode, the incoming and outgoing mass flow rates are not necessarily equal to each other (i.e., basic continuity equation). The incoming and outgoing mass flow rates are equal to each other only under steady-state conditions, which are never attained in pulse detonation combustion. However, the air and fuel mass (in lbm) is conserved but not the mass flow rates. Moreover, the instantaneous outgoing mass flow rate was time-averaged using a frequency of 207 Hz. This

11

frequency gives a cycle time of 4.83 ms. The filling, detonation, and purging times were 3.26, 0.59, and 0.96 ms, respectively. The filling time was computed using Eq. (6) for which the filling velocity was 286.33 d s , which was based upon estimated core and bypass Mach numbers, Table 5 in the thermodynamic cycle analysis. By averaging the instantaneous mass flow rate using a longer cycle time, a lower time-averaged mass flow rate would result. At this point, it is not clear whether or not a different time interval should be used in the time-averaging. This is currently under further investigation. Finally, it is of interest to point out that the improvement in the pulse detonation afterburner performance as the nozzle area ratio is increased, may be attributed to the increase in the nozzle exit area. Engine thrust is linearly proportional to the nozzle exit area, Eq. (2), which has more effect on the engine thrust than flow expansion in the nozzle. Figure 30 shows, for example, the computed total gross thrust using Eq. (2) per unit area of the nozzle. It is seen that the thrust per unit area decreases as the nozzle area ratio is increased. This is caused by flow expansion in the nozzle and the time averaging of the flow properties. Note here that in Fig. 30, the thrust for each nozzle area ratio was divided by its corresponding nozzle exit area.

The CFD results showed that by increasing the nozzle area ratio, an improved engine performance can be obtained. The results also showed that in order for the turbofan engine performance with a pulse detonation afterburner to be better than that with a conventional afterburner, a minimum nozzle area ratio of 1.71 would be required. The implication is that pulse detonation afterburner has potential performance improvements as compared to its conventional counterpart. However, engine volume and weight would increase as the nozzle area ratio is increased and this could have the potential for offsetting the performance gains. It is also important to indicate that the calculated performance in the present study still needs to be quantified experimentally, which warrants the needed experiments. Finally, it should be indicated that other nozzle shapes such as bell and contoured shapes may produce higher performance than the straight divergent nozzle. Therefore, an optimum nozzle wall shape for pulse detonation afterburner still needs to be obtained. This warrants further nozzle optimization studies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would also like to thank Mr. Jeffrey Stricker, Mr. Chns Norden, Mr. Gregory Bruening, and Mr. Mike Gahn for providing us with the engine cycle and carrying out the engine performance cycle analysis and useful discussions.

CONCLUSION The impact of a nozzle upon the performance of a turbofan engine with a conceptual pulse detonation afterburner design configuration was assessed in the present study. Equilibrium as well as three-dimensional CFD computations were conducted to compute the engine performance. A five-step chemistry model for JP-8 fuel was used. The nozzle divergent angle was varied to study its effect on the engine performance. Three nozzle exit to throat area ratios were considered and were 1.38, 1.7 1 and 2.49, respectively. These area ratios corresponded to 8", 14" and 25" respectively for the nozzle divergent angles.

REFERENCES
1. Mawid, M. A., Park, T. W., "Towards Replacement of Turbofan Engines Afterburners with Pulse Detonation Devices," AIAA Paper 2001-3470, 3 71h AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Salt Lake City, Utah, July 8-1 1,2001. 2. Talley, D. and Schauer, F., "Overview of Pulse Detonated Engines (Air Force)," invited paper at 4gh JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Tuscon AZ,1999.

12

3. Schauer, F., Stutrud, J., and Bradley, R., AFRLs In-House Research Pulse Detonation Engine, invited paper at 12 PERC Symposium, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1999. 4. Computational Dynamics Limited, 1999, STAR-CD Manuals, Version 3.1. 5. Lynch, E. D., Edelman, R. B., and Palaniswamy, S., Computational Fluid Dynamic Analysis of the Pulse Detonation Engine Concept, AIAA 92-0264. 6. Eidelman, S., Grossmann, W., and Lottati, I., Computational Analysis of Pulsed Detonation Engines and Applications, AIAA 90-0460. 7. Eidelman, S., Grossmann, W., and Lottati, I., Air-Breathing Pulsed Detonation Engine Concept: A Numerical Study, AIAA 90-2420. 8. Eidelman, S. and Grossmann, W., Pulsed Detonation Engine Experimental and Theoretical Review, AIAA 92-3 168. 9. Eidelman, S., Grossmann, W., and Lottati, I., A Review of Propulsion Applications of the Pulsed Detonation Engine Concept, AIAA 892446. 10. Cambier, J. L. and Adelman, H. G., Preliminary Numerical Simulations of a

Pulsed Detonation Wave Engine, AIAA 882960. 11. Mawid, M. A., Park, T. W., and Sekar, B., Numerical Analysis of Pulse Detonation Engines Using Global and Reduced Hydrocarbon Kinetics, AIAA 99-4901. 12. McBride, Bonnie J., Gordon, Sanford, Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and Applications, NASA Reference Publication 1311, June 1996. 13. Bussing, T. R. A., and Pappas, G., An introduction to Pulse Detonation Engines, AIAA 94-0263. 14. Bussing, T. R. A., and Hinkey, J. B., and Kaye, L., Pulse Detonation Engine Preliminary Design Considerations, AIAA 94-3220. 15. Bratkovich, T. E. and Bussing, T. R. A., A Pulse Detonation Engine Performance Model, AIAA 95-3155. 16. Cambier, J.-L., Preliminary Modeling of Pulse Detonation Rocket Engines, AIAA 99-2659. 17. Sekar, B., Palaniswamy, S., Peroomian, O., and Chakravarthy, S., A Numerical Study of the Pulse Detonation Wave Engine with Hydrocarbon Fuels, AIAA 98-3880.

13

Table 1 Conventional Turbofan Cycle

Conventional Turbfim Cycle

OPR FPR
FTR Bypass Ratio Total Air Flow with A/B Engine Core Air Flow Bypass Duct Air Flow Total Fuel Flow with A43 Core Fuel Flow Total Thrust with A/B Total SFC with A/B Total Specific Thrust with A/B Core Thrust without Bypass Air Flow Core SFC
Core Specific Thrust without Bypass Air Flow

5.85
1.7 0.8 372 I b d s 207 I b d s

165 I b d s
25.17 I b d s

8.366 I b d s
59,610 Ibf 1.52 l b d l b f h r 159.7 IbfAbds 2 1,908 lbf 0.763 l b d l b f k r 105.83 lbf/lbm/s 39,478 Ibf

Core Thrust (Dry) with Bypass Air Flow

Core Dry Specific Thrust with Bypass Air Flow

105.83 lbf/lbds

Table 2

14

Table 3

5.0596~0l6 1

1.9200~ 1013 2.75O x 1Oo6 O 8.0000~10'~ 4.7799~ 1013

20.0 9746.77 40.0

0.0
-0.83 -1.o

1.o 1.o

1 .o

1.o
1.o

Table 4

Table 5

15

Bypass AirFLOW

Fan Air-Fuel

/
PD
Annular Passages

e-

or

II

k
Rotary Valve

Figure la. Pulse Detonation Afterburner Turbofan Engine Concept.

Figure lb. Front View of Pulse Detonation Afterburner.

16

i Hvdroeen-Air25

- .............................................

i........................

:.....................................................................

-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

...................

>

Figure 2. Predicted and Measured Thrust as a Function of the Frequency for the Hydrogen-Air Case.

20

'

"

Propane-Air 4%
15 -

IO -

5-

Data CFD
0
18
" ' " " ~ ' " ' " ' ~ ' ' ' " ' ~

20

22

24

26

28

30

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 3. Predicted and Measured Thrust as a Function of the Frequency for the Propane-Air Case.

17

Figure 4a. A Schematic of the Part Modeled for Pulse Detonation Afterburner.

Dump Tank

Figure 4b. Physical Domain for the CFD Computations.

18

Zoom A

Zoom B

Figure 5. Computational Grid System of the 3' Pulse Detonative Pie Sector, Nozzle and Dump Tank.

19

Figure 6. C-J Pressure and Temperature Peak Values versus Engine Core Flow Fraction.

1850

b n
Z

c
\

05 .
I -

Detonatbn Mach Number Detonatbn Veloclty (mh)

, l l l l l l l l l

.
1

11550
I

1w 5
1

'

02 .

'

1 0.4

06 .

08 .

Engine Core Flow Fraction

Figure 7. Detonation Mach Number and Detonation Velocity versus Engine Core Flow Fraction.

20

1u'

1 o-z

0
0.2 0.4 0.6
0.8

Engine Core flow Fraction

Figure 8. Detonation Equilibrium Composition versus Engine Core Flow Fraction.

1.2

1.6

1.6

- 1.4 \. [ 1

CL

1.2

- 0.8
0

02 .

0.4

06 .

0.8

Engine Core Flow Fraction

Figure 9. Mach Number and Density versus Engine Core Flow Fraction.

21

m .g!

B cn cn e! n
3

Nozzle Throat

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Time (ms)

Figure 10. Predicted Pressure-Time Histories at Closed End, Nozzle Throat, and Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 8O.

Nozzle Throat

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Time (ms)

Figure 11. Predicted Pressure-Time Histories at Closed End, Nozzle Throat, and Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 14'.
22

500

400

p! a
u) v)

300

Nozzle Throat

p!
200

100

0 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Time (ms)

Figure 12. Predicted Pressure-Time Histories at Closed End, Nozzle Throat, and Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 25".

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Time (ms)

Figure 13. Predicted Axial Velocity-Time Histories at Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 8'.
23

Time (ms)

Figure 14. Predicted Axial Velocity-Time Histories at Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 14".

Time (ms)

Figure 15. Predicted Axial Velocity-Time Histories at Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 25".

24

3
E

E .E

n
u)

0.5

I.5

2.5

3.5

Time (ms)

Figure 16. Predicted Density-Time Histories at Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 8O.

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Time (ms)

Figure 17. Predicted Density-Time Histories at Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 14".

25

0.35

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

f
0.3

Density-Time'Historyat the Nozzle Exit

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Time (ms)

Figure 18. Predicted Density-Time Histories at Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 25O.

70

60
h

m .-

v)

50

e! 3
v) v)

n U a l

e!

40

rn

2
20

E a,

30

10 1.25

1.5

I.75

2.25

2.5

2.75

NA*

Figure 19. Averaged Pressure at Nozzle Throat and Exit as a Function of Nozzle Exit to Throat Area Ratio.
26

0.11

. . ' .

"

"

'

'

"

. ! . . .
............. 1............

. .

0105 -.......................

............ ............

............. ............

............ :............

"

2
0 085
................ .....
: -

Noue' Exit........... j ........................ Noule Throat i

............ ............

i....................... i
i . ~ ~ ~

0.08

'

"

"

"

'

"

'

"

"

"

'

Figure 20. Averaged Density at Nozzle Throat and Exit as a Function of Nozzle Exit to Throat Area Ratio.

1.5 I.......................

i..................................................

y == 1.28

:.........................

................................................

,-

.4 ...........

1 3 ----- ........................................... 1 2 -.......................

.......... 1 1 -- ..........

;...................... . .
....... ...... --;...........

i............ ............

j ........................

............ >: ............

........... i............

.............. ....;............. i...... ............

............ i............

........... i............
.......... ..........

:
.. .:

1 I...........................................

i _.I--?I........... E-.-- ....d ............................................. 0.9

-~-~~-~~ _---" - - ~ - " " ~ ~ - - - - ~ - ---:::--:-::/~ - - ~ ~

;

....; .......................

............ ............

~_~______

0 8 -........................

........................

1......

07
0.6

-........................
" '

;........................
~ '

. - Nou'e Exit............ i... ..................... . ----- Nozzle Throat i ;--..................... :........................ t ........................
~ ~ ~ " ~ ~

j .......................
i ........................

"

"

'

'

Figure 21. Averaged Mach Number at Nozzle Throat and Exit as a Function of Nozzle Exit to Throat Area Ratio.

27

........... 55I 000 ............

...........

.........................

:............ .............

:........... . ........... .

...........

-----

'Time-Averaged Thrust Steady-State-Like-AveragedThrust Brayton Cycle (59,610 Ibf)

AIA*

Figure 22. Predicted Total Gross Thrust as a Function of Nozzle Exit to Throat Area Ratio.

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

AIA*

Figure 23. Predicted Specific Thrust as a Function of Nozzle Exit to Throat Area Ratio.

28

Figure 24. Predicted Specific Fuel Consumption as a Function of Nozzle Exit to Throat Area Ratio.

AIA*

Figure 25. Predicted Thrust Ratio, qthrust Function of Nozzle Exit to Throat Area Ratio. as a

29

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Time (ms)

Figure 26. Predicted Mass Flow Rate-Time Histories at Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 8'.
15,000-.
* =

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

"

'

".

;Mass Flow Rate-Time History at the Nozzle Exit

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Time (ms)

Figure 27. Predicted Mass Flow Rate-Time Histories at Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 14'.
30

Mass Flow Rate-Time History at the Nozzle Exit

INA* = 2.493 (a=25

* -

................... +..
;
,

----.= 16.2 in. R2

..R3 = 27.1 in.

...................

....................

:.......... ...........

c.....................

;.-................

1
3.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

Time (ms)

Figure 28. Predicted Mass Flow Rate-Time Histories at Nozzle Exit for Nozzle Divergent Angle of 25".

NA*

Figure 29. Time & Area-Averaged Exit Mass Flow Rate vs. Cycle Total Exit Mass Flow Rate as a Function of Nozzle Exit to Throat Area Ratio.

31

P (

5 P m
S

5 .c
L

8' c
m

e
U

2
a

5
F
E

E a

Figure 30. Computed Total Gross Thrust per Unit Area of the Nozzle as a Function of Nozzle Exit to Throat Area Ratio.

32