Energy 237 (2021) 121719

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Internal flow dynamics and performance of pulse detonation engine

with alternative fuels
Mahammadsalman Warimani a, Muhammad Hanafi Azami a, *, Sher Afghan Khan a,
Ahmad Faris Ismail a, Sanisah Saharin a, Ahmad Kamal Ariffin b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, analytical and computational analysis is performed to determine the effect of thermody-
Received 26 January 2021 namic detonation parameters on the performance of the pulse detonation engine. For analytical study
Received in revised form along with pure fuels blend of hydrogen (50 %) þ kerosene (50 %), hydrogen (50 %) þ methane (50 %) and
29 July 2021
methane (50 %) þ kerosene (50 %) are considered. The ANSYS FLUENT program is utilized two-
Accepted 5 August 2021
Available online 9 August 2021
dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation using a stoichiometric mixture of three
pure fuels: hydrogen-air, methane-air, and kerosene-air. Time-dependent numerical simulations are
used to explore the flow condition inside the detonation tube. Excellent performance is observed for
Keywords:
Pulse detonation engine
hydrogen-air fuel. Hydrogen shows the highest velocity of 2524.36 m/s and a specific impulse of
Computation fluid dynamics 6842.16 s. The lowest velocity and specific impulse are produced by kerosene of 1520 m/s and 1473.6 s,
Direct initiation respectively. It is shown that measured parameters could vary significantly depending on the choice of
Alternative fuels fuels used. The results infer that hydrogen blends of methane and kerosene fuels are also suitable for
Blended fuels pulse detonation engine (PDE) application. Finally, these analytical and simulated results are validated
with the previously published literature and NASA CEA (national aeronautics and space administration
-chemical equilibrium with applications).
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction detonation engine can significantly decrease the cost of an orbit

transfer system [6]. Furthermore, PDE can also increase the gas
Nowadays, issues concerning to increase in population and fuel turbine engine's fuel efficiency due to its higher thermodynamic
demand are to be addressed. Energy demands are increasing every efficiency [7]. Limited moving parts and the robust design of a PDE
day due to population increase, industrialization, and changing can improve the system's impulse [8]. The possible applications of
human consumption habits [1]. The International Energy Agency the PDE's are creating small, low-cost missiles, unmanned ariel
(IEA) reported that the world would need 50 % more energy in 2040 vehicles (UAV), unmanned combat aerial vehicles, and commercial
[2]. Further, several studies revealed the adverse effects of emis- aircraft engines (UCAV) [9]. As shown in Fig. 1, the pulse detonation
sions leading to cancer and other respiratory disorders. These engine consists of four stages 1) filling, 2) initiation, 3) propagation,
emissions are also one of the major causes of acid rain and global 4) blowdown & purging during the filling stage mixture of fuel &
warming [3]. Improving aircraft fuel consumption, encouraging the air-filled in the tube. High pressure and temperature initiate shock
use of biofuels, preventing greenhouse gas emissions, and waves and chemical reactions in the mixture from the detonation.
decreasing engine and airframe noise are challenges of the current Expansion waves generated by initiation move towards closed-end,
world [4]. and pressure reduces during Taylor's expansion. Flow field during
On the other hand, the PDE continues to advance ground-based blowdown is similar to filling as detonation wave leaves the tube,
power generation and aircraft propulsion technology [5]. A pulse expansion waves generated at the closed-end move towards the
open end, and cyclic repeats [10e13]. Filling and blowdown
consume considerably more time than detonation initiation and
propagation.
* Corresponding author. Fig. 2 shows that the ZND structure consists of a leading shock
E-mail address: hanafiazami@iium.edu.my (M.H. Azami).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121719
0360-5442/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Warimani, M.H. Azami, S.A. Khan et al. Energy 237 (2021) 121719

convenient in producing an aerodynamic drag force. However,

Debnath et al. considered the time step was 1 s, which is regarded
as very high. Further, Maciel and Marques [22] numerically inves-
tigated H2eair-fuelled PDE with reduced chemical kinetics avail-
able in ANSYS fluent software and compared the results with CEA
and ZND codes. It was found that the Chapman Jouguet (CJ) velocity
and pressure were consistent, but the CJ temperatures were too
high for two-dimensional simulations. Unfortunately, they are
limited to research only on hydrogen fuel. The advantages of liquid
hydrogen fuels in aeroplanes were estimated using a numerical
model created by Rondinelli et al. [23]. They reported that hydrogen
in cryogenic liquid form is a highly sustainable commercial aviation
fuel with minimal emissions. The thermodynamic analysis of
alternative fuel-based choices for a turboprop engine was investi-
gated by Sogut [24]. Yakovlieva et al. [25] compared traditional jet
fuels and newly created alternative jet fuels under engine operating
conditions. They concluded that operating characteristics of the Jet
Fig. 1. Pulse detonation engine working process.
engine fuelled by newly blended jet fuels were found to comply
with exploitation standards fully. Srihari et al. [26] assessed the
flow settings inside the detonation tube as a function of time and
distance. Ethylene fuel with air as oxidiser was utilized and deto-
nation parameters were measured and compared with NASA CEA.
But it was tested only with ethylene air.
Ranasinghe et al. [27] reviewed the key technological ad-
vancements in low-emission aircraft propulsion, including com-
bustion and thermo-fluidic improvements, gearbox technology,
lightweight materials, and intelligent engine health management
systems. Ekici et al. [28] explored a statistical model of the engine's
sustainability efficiency using a combination of methanol (CH3OH)
and conventional kerosene (C12H26). The findings revealed that
when the excess air is maintained stable, but the alternative fuel is
increased, the mixture is enriched with oxygen as a source of
methanol, and the real air-fuel ratio is reduced. Analytical and
numerical in-depth analysis of air-breathing PDE's propulsive per-
Fig. 2. Variation of pressure and temperature in ZND (Zeldovichevon Neu-
formance at various flight conditions investigated by Ma et al. [29].
manneDoring) detonation structure [17].
They concluded that PDE is better than ramjet engines.
Moreover, they mentioned different tube sizes selected for
wave that raises the reacting mixture pressure until the spike of experimental and numerical methods in PDE research. But Ma
von Neumann pressure spike, followed by the induction zone and et al.‘s study is limited to hydrogen fuel only. An analytical
heat addition zone. Fuel reacts with an oxidizer in the induction assessment of PDE for impulse calculation was conducted by
zone, which creates radicals and release heat. The chemistry in the Winterberger et al. [30]. They used various fuels like hydrogen,
induction region is unique for numerous fuels. As the reaction rate acetylene, ethylene, propane, JP-10 and concluded that the impulse
starts to rise exponentially, the induction zone converts to the re- produced by different fuels depends on initial conditions and en-
action zone, increasing temperature rapidly while stabilizing ergy release in the mixture. Zhang et al. [31] experimentally
pressure and density to their final equilibrium state [14e16]. investigated a fluidic nozzle effect on a pulse detonation rocket
In the past, numerous attempts have been made to understand engine's performance. They have concluded that the fluidic nozzle
the PDE tube's unstable flow structure. Bussing and Pappas [18] improved the thrust value to 137.8 % at proper conditions. Wang
introduced the concept of a pulse detonation engine showing et al. [32] experimented on a valveless pulse detonation rocket
100 ms are required for the detonation wave to traverse the entire engine without a purge process. They used liquid gasoline as fuel.
chamber for hydrogen-air fuel. Selcuk Ekici's [19] researched into They investigated that detonation tubes with smaller volumes can
various aircraft types fitted with various aircraft engines provided produce higher frequency, resulting in higher exhaust flow velocity.
valuable knowledge to aircraft and engine designers, suppliers, and Researchers like M.A. Wahid, S. M. Frolov, and Khalid M. Saqr et al.
consumers. The research was the first to present efficiency criteria, [33e35] used biogas or natural gas as fuel in research works on
sustainability indicators, and ecological coefficients of performance PDE. Table 1 shows the physical and chemical properties of selected
for flight operations performed during aircraft transportation from fuelsdthese properties of fuel result in a variation of thermody-
one airport to another. Researchers like Selcuk Ekici [20] described namic properties and pulse detonation engine performance.
a flight path intended to be similar to the route that a real com- Recently, Xisto et al. [39] built a version for predicting NOx
mercial aircraft is exposed to. Gasturb12 software was used to build generation in pulsed detonation combustors using jet-A fuel. CFD
parametric loops. Debnath and Pandey [21] investigated PDE the data for various combustor inlet pressures, temperatures, and
effect of specific thrust and pressure on convergence and diver- equivalence ratio levels are used to construct the model. They
gence nozzle phenomena. They reported that thrust at the diver- discovered that detonation in lean mixtures reduced NOx emis-
gent section nozzle is more related to that in the convergent sions significantly. Another way to mitigate NOx formation is to use
section. stratified charges. The effect of different K2CO3 ionized seed mass
Moreover, they found that a divergent nozzle is more contents on the detonation process was studied using an experi-
mental platform of a PDE by Lin et al. [36], which has shown
2
M. Warimani, M.H. Azami, S.A. Khan et al. Energy 237 (2021) 121719

Table 1
Physical and chemical properties of selected fuels.

Fuel Hydrogen (H2) [36] Kerosene (C12 H23) [37] Methane (CH4) [38]

Molecular weight (g/mol) 2.016 167.3 16.043

Heat capacity Cp (J/mol-K). 28.871 229.643 35.645
Enthalpy of formation DfH gas (kJ/mol) 0 258,360 73400
Laminar flame Speed (m/s) 3.06 0.55 0.35

excellent results. The findings indicate that adding ionized seeds to straight tube PDE with pure and blended fuels. Examining the in-
the PDE tube improved gas conductivity in the detonation phase. At fluence of fuel variation on PDE is vital in two ways: it adds novel,
ignition frequencies of 5 Hz and 10 Hz, the PDE was effectively specific information to the current PDE research by utilizing
ignited and produced a stable detonation wave. The peak pressure blended fuels. It aids in the evaluation of PDE performance. The
of the stable detonation with the ignition frequency of 5 Hz was 17% additional effect of fuel on PDE performance will be gained by
greater than that with the ignition frequency of 10 Hz. Murray et al. comparing analytical and CFD results through the available litera-
[40] investigated ethylene fuel and oxygen or air as an oxidizer ture and using NASA-Chemical Equilibrium with Applications (CEA)
filled in a pulse detonation engine to understand the effect of fre- software. As a result, the knowledge gained from this PDE study
quency and spark delay time on thrust performance and efficiency. might be used to utilize investigated fuels to other high-speed
In a stainless-steel combustion chamber, reactants were blended at engines.
frequencies ranging from 1 to 40 Hz. Maximum efficiency and
thrust were obtained for given frequencies with a 2 ms spark delay 2. Methodology
period. Testing became unpredictable when the spark delay period
exceeded 6 ms, with pulses misfiring and reduced performance. 2.1. Computational domain
Alam et al. [41] researched how gaseous hydrocarbon fuels like
Octane C8H18, Hexane C6H14, and Pentane C5H12 affect the cyclic The detonating tube size selected for the analysis is 200 mm
combustion mechanism in a pulse detonation engine with an long and 20 mm in diameter in the current numerical simulation.
obstructed channel. Three-dimensional reactive NaviereStokes The geometry is 2-D axisymmetric. This geometry size is similar to
equations were used in the study. The findings revealed that a Bussing et al. and Morris [45,46]. A small ‘spark’ region to initiates
high-temperature combustion wave travels at the local speed of the detonation in these computations, as shown in Fig. 3. Recently
sound at first and causes instability when colliding with obstacles, Xisto et al. employed the direct initiation method, and in this
culminating in supersonic flame rates. research, the same detonation initiation method is used [39]. The
As a result, different combustion flame propagation speeds, position of the spark is next to the tube's closed-end, which plays a
combustion efficiency, and impulse per unit area have been ob- vital role in simulation because if the location of the spark is not
tained for these fuels. An intensive modeling platform was devel- chosen correctly, the tube will fail to achieve detonation. In this
oped and applied in the analysis to simulate the three phases of the study, different sizes of spark locations are tested until detonation
liquid-fuelled pulse detonation engine's operational cycle by occurs. If, during simulation testing, detonation parameters are
Nguyen et al. [42]. The Jet-A liquid fuel is used as fuel and air as an identical to those previously reported in the literature, then that
oxidizer. The findings show that the mass fraction of pre-vaporized spark size is finalized. The spark zone has a higher pressure and
fuel plays a vital role in the DDT (deflagration to detonation) pro- temperature in comparison to the rest of the tube. If detonation has
cess' success. The deflagration will successfully transition to deto- not occurred in the spark region, the area size, temperature, and
nation for both complete and incomplete vaporization of the liquid pressure can be increased until the detonation is detected once
droplets within the detonation chamber. If too lean or too rich fuel again. According to Kailasanath et al. [47], the spark region's size,
vapor in the mixture, the deflagration cannot effectively transition pressure, and temperature vary until detonation occurs. After doing
to detonation. For aerospace, hydrogen fuel remains a viable the test in various high pressure, temperature, and spark distances,
renewable energy carrier [43]. in the final simulation for all fuels, a high-pressure of 90 bar and
Hydrogen has a low molecular weight, high reactivity, and high high-temperature of 3700 K and a spark region length of 0.035 L are
specific heat, which provides higher PDE performance. Unfortu- selected. The gaseous mixture product is filled in the spark region
nately, hydrogen has the severe disadvantage of having volumetric to avoid combustion.
energy content that is very low, highly flammable, and highly
expensive. As a result, proper ventilation and leak detection sensors 2.2. Mesh generation
are critical components in the progress of safe hydrogen systems.
Special flame detectors are obligatory as hydrogen burns with an Fluent analysis requires the division of geometry into numerous
almost invisible flame. Kerosene is exceptionally heat-resistant and
has increased density and low saturated vapor pressure, making it
an extensively used hydrocarbon fuel for modern aircraft and
rocket engines [44]. Biogas or natural gas is a renewable energy
source that is relatively cheap and more effective in reducing
greenhouse gas. The literature on biogas as fuel on PDE is limited.
Therefore, in this research, methane-air used as fuel is also given
focus. Pulse detonation engine technology is still in the active phase
of research. However, the cost involved is high in experimental
combustor research. Thus, to speed up the pulse detonation engine
development, the scientific community uses CFD to predict and
improve the PDEs' operational parameters and efficiency.
This study aims to do analytical and CFD simulations in a Fig. 3. High pressure and temperature patch.

3
M. Warimani, M.H. Azami, S.A. Khan et al. Energy 237 (2021) 121719

smaller non-superimposed subdomains to solve computational were continuously solved in all cases. The implicit formulation was
geometry's flow physics. High fidelity simulation is inspected by selected because the variables were resolved simultaneously in
varying mesh sizes. Initially, the study of the detonation tube began each computational cell, and the solution converged quicker than
with 40,000 elements to save computational time. Once the track before. Roe's Flux- Difference Splitting (Roe-FDS) scheme was used
matching results become the same as the previous literature and in this research for high Mach number flows. The reaction time for
NASA CEA values, the grid size was gradually increased. This was detonation is minimal; therefore, the step size was 108 s. Due to
scrutinized to eliminate the error occurred in various mesh size. the small grid size, the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) number was
Grid sizes of 60,000 (mesh 1), 80,000 (mesh 2), 100,000 (mesh 3) reduced to 0.6. The laminar viscous model is considered.
elements were selected. The detonation velocity of 2040 m/s,
2280 m/s, and 2300 m/s was produced by mesh 1, mesh 2, mesh 3, 2.4. Combustion modeling
respectively. In the grid size of 0.1 million elements, the detonation
velocity error is minimum compared to 80,000 elements. Thus, the For numerical analysis, PDE combustor with three different fuel
simulation results shown in this paper have 0.1 million of the (i.e., hydrogen, methane, and kerosene) mixture reactions have
element size. Varying mesh sizes investigate error analysis of re- been calculated. The stoichiometric ratio is considered as one. The
sults. By considering mesh 1 and mesh 2, the error in terms of chemical kinetics reaction balance equations were as follows:
detonation velocity is 10.52%. So to reduce the error percentage,

y
mesh 3 is considered. Error percentage between mesh 2 and mesh 3 Cx Hy þ aðO2 þ 3:76N2 Þ / xCO2 þ H2 O þ 3:76aN2 (1)
is 0.86 % which is considerably less than mesh 1. As a result, it was 2
concluded that a mesh 3 that is the size of 0.1 million elements was
where. a ¼ x þ ðy =4Þ
suitable for numerical computations.
Adjust the left-hand and right-hand equations to balance.

2.3. Boundary conditions mfuel

Mass fraction; Y ¼ (2)
moxidizer
Fig. 4 shows the boundary conditions for the PDE tube. In this 2-
D axisymmetric simulation, the computational area contained
mainly two types of boundary conditions: wall and pressure outlet.
Combustion takes place in the combustion chamber. The combus- 2.4.1. Analytical assessment of detonation properties
tor's right side is an open-end, and a fixed pressure outlet boundary PDE thermodynamic properties like pressure, temperature, and
condition is used. The left and top parts of the tube are considered detonation velocities are obtained by considering to one-
as a wall. dimensional model by referring to Jouguet (CJ) and the
Generally, a chemically reactive flow solution requires an Zeldovichevon NeumanneDoring (ZND) theories. Analysis of PDE
extended amount of computational time. Moreover, resources in tube is conducted by considering the following assumption: (1) The
this solution are necessary to obtain a converged and accurate so- flow is 1D, and only ideal combustion is considered. (2) the specific
lution due to its complexity. For this study, the student version of heats are constant, Cp and cv are equal, and also the area is constant
the Ansys product FLUENT was used. In this research, it took around (3) the body forces are negligible; and (4) adiabatic conditions are
60 h to get the simulation results of hydrogen-air fuel. As the prevailing throughout the detonation process (i.e., there are no heat
molecular weight of fuel increases, the computational time also losses to the surroundings).
increases. Therefore, calculations were performed based on a Thermochemical properties can be found by using the equations
nominal length of 200 mm to reduce calculation times. This length mentioned below. Specific heats at constant pressure at both states
may affect the results observed. Despite that, this article delivered a 1 and 2 are given by Eqs. (3) and (4).
suggestion of the kinds of operational limits anticipated for PDE
P
operation. A density-based solver is selected as applicable for b
state1 Xi c p;i
simulation when the equations between state and species are Cp;1 ¼ (3)
MW1
strongly coupled. And in this research, flow is a supersonic and
compressible simulation; for this type of problem, a density-based P
b
state2 Xi c p;i
solver is suitable. This solver solves the governing equations for Cp;2 ¼ (4)
mass, momentum, energy, and species transport using the finite MW2
volume discretization method. The pressure is achieved through a Gas constant, R2 can be evaluated by Eq. (5)
state equation.
Several iterations were necessary to converge the solution, and Ru
R2 ¼ (5)
it took 170,892 iterations required to converge the solution. Flash MW2
arrestors are not used for any of the fuels used in the study. Until
The specific heat ratio, g2 is given by Eq. (6)
the residual magnitude is less than 104, the governing equations
Cp;2 Cp;2
g2 ¼ ¼ (6)
Cv;2 Cp;2  R2

By referring to Ref. [48], enthalpies-of-formation can be ob-

tained to calculate the heat of formation, q, as mentioned in Eq. (7).
Enthalpies-of-formation is converted into a mass balance
X X
q≡ Yi h0f ;i  Yi h0f ;i (7)
state1 state2

With the heat of formation is known, the detonation velocity and

Fig. 4. The boundary condition for the PDE tube. temperature at state two can be calculated by using Eq. (8) and Eq.
4
M. Warimani, M.H. Azami, S.A. Khan et al. Energy 237 (2021) 121719

(9) as shown below: terms of specific thrust and impulse. So, the expression for the
specific thrust is,
2 0 13 1
2

6 Bbc p;1 q C7 Fsp ¼ ð1 þ f Þue  u∞ (16)

vD ¼ 42g2 R2 ðg2 þ 1Þ@ T1 þ A5 (8)
bc p;2 b
c p;2
where Fsp is the specific thrust, f is the overall fuel-to-air mass ratio
0 1 of the mixture of the reactants and purge air, ue is the mass-
averaged axial velocity at engine exit plane, u∞ is the axial veloc-
2g22 Bbc p;1 q C ity. The specific impulse Isp can be determined by Eq. (17).
T2 ¼ @ T þ A (9)
g2 þ 1 bc p;2 1 bc p;2
Fsp
Isp ¼ (17)
The properties at state 20 can be determined by employing the f *g
ideal-gas normal-shock equation. These properties are used to
compare state one and state 2. The mixture's specific heat ratio and
the Mach number at state one are required to determine all the
properties at state 2 using equation (10). We assume g ¼ 1:3 and 3. Validation
Mach number at state 1;
CEA calculated the thermodynamic properties of the fuel. This
Vx1 Vx1 study used the NASA Open-Source Program, CEA, and available
Ma1 ¼ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (10)
C1 gR1 T1 literature to estimate various alternative fuels' detonation param-
eters. The pressure ratios, temperature ratios, and detonation ve-
After obtaining the Mach number at state one and the specific
locity of all three pure fuels agreed with NASA CEA's values. Most of
heat ratio, all the properties at state 2’ can be evaluated using Eqs.
the researchers working on PDE validated numerical and experi-
(11)e(13).
mental results with NASA e CEA. So, in this article, also results are
P20 1
 validated with the NASA CEA program. These research results are in
¼ 2gMa21  ðg  1Þ (11) excellent agreement with the available literature values. But
P1 g þ 1
research article on blended fuel of selected proportions was used
first time in our research. Therefore, only a blend of hydrogen &
T20
 2gMa2  ðg  1Þ
methane is validated using the NASA CEA program because both
¼ 2 þ ðg  1ÞMa21 1
(12)
T1 ðg þ 1Þ2 Ma2 1 fuels are available in the NASA CEA database, but blend
hydrogen þ kerosene and methane þ kerosene data not available in
any article according to researchers' literature review. CJ pressure
r20 ðg þ 1ÞMa21
¼ (13) and temperature for CFD, pure analytical fuel, and blended fuels are
r1 ðg þ 1ÞMa21 þ 2 shown in Tables 2e4. Since kerosene air is not included in any
detonation calculation program, for comparison, the theoretical C-J
value of the Jet-A, JP 8, or n-decane kerosene-type fuels are used
here and validated with available data as shown in Table 3.
2.4.2. Equations used for the blended fuels As mentioned in Tables 2 and 3, it is clear that the Chapman
The blended fuel equation set is taken from the mathematical Jouguet pressure ratio and temperature ratio of hydrogen-air were
model presented in Melih Yildiz et al. [49]. The chemical equation less than the other two fuels for CFD results. As shown in Table 2,
to describe the combustion reaction is expressed by Eq. (14). CFD's and the analytical highest value of detonation velocity of

d yields
frcCn Hm þ ð1  frcÞCf Hb OY þ ðO2 þ 3:773N2 Þ!X1 CO2 þ X2 CO þ X3 H2 0 þ X4 H2 þ X5 O2 þ X6 N2 þ X7 H þ X8 O þ X9 NO
4
þ X10 OH
(14)

2300 m/s and 2524.36 m/s respectively is achieved by hydrogen-

where frc is the fraction of the selected fuel, Cn Hm & Cf Hb OY is the air. CFD detonation velocity value of 2300 m/s is more deviating
selected hydrocarbon-based fuels, n, m, a, d, and 4 represents the than NASA CEA values because a higher value of pressure and
number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the fuels, temperature is considered (90 bar & 3700 K). If initial values of
respectively, and x1-x10 denote the number of moles for each pressure and temperatures were reduced, then the error percent-
product. age also reduces; meanwhile, as shown in Table 3, the pressure for
  kerosene is at its maximum, makings its speed the lowest for CFD

m b Y analysis. It produced the lowest value of 1520 m/s detonation ve-
d ¼ frc n þ þ ð1  frcÞ f þ  (15)
4 4 2 locity in CFD results because heavy hydrocarbons do not detonate
easily. CFD methane fuel pressure ratio and temperature ratios are
similar to hydrogen-air, as shown in Table 2. Table 4 shows the
blended fuel results. Blending of 50% hydrogen & 50 % kerosene,
2.4.3. Assessment of performance parameters 50 % hydrogen & 50 % methane, and 50% kerosene & 50 % methane,
The pulse detonation engine's performance is measured in
5
M. Warimani, M.H. Azami, S.A. Khan et al. Energy 237 (2021) 121719

Table 2
Validation of the present computational model with NASA CEA.

Fuel Parameter Analytical S. Yungster and K. Radhakrishnan [50] K. Kailasanath B. D. Taylor et al. E. C. Maciel et al. NASA CFD CFD
Model [47] [51] [52] CEA Model Error %

Hydrogen Pressure ratio (P2/ 24.09 23 20 31.47 14 15.49 15 3.16

P1)
Temperature ratio 15.60 10 e 10 12.16 9.81 8.73 11.00
(T2/T1)
Velocity (m/s) 2524.36 2400 2380 2020 1996 1964.9 2300 17.00
Fuel Parameters Analytical Shehab Elhawary et al. (80 % S. M. Frolov et al. e e NASA CFD CFD
model methane-air) [53] [35] CEA Model Error %
Methane Pressure ratio (P2/ 15.43 16.5 e e e 18.00 16.5 8.33
P1)
Temperature ratio 8.53 9.1 e e e 10 8.8 12.00
(T2/T1)
Velocity (m/s) 1759.64 1733 1600 to 1700 e e 1858.2 1962 5.58

Table 3
Validation of the present computational model with literature for kerosene.

Kerosene-air Analytical Model R. Kling [54] Huang [55] J. Kindraki [56] CFD Model S. M. Frolo et al. [57]

Velocity (m/s) 1827 1450 1414.4 1750 1520 1600e1800

Pressure ratio (P2/P1) 18.33 e e 18.5 19 e
Temperature ratio (T2/T1) 9.61 e e e 9.86 e

Table 4
Results of blended fuels for detonation parameter.

Detonation parameter Analytical blend hydrogen þ methane NASA blend hyd þ meth Analytical blend hydrogen & kerosene Analytical blend methane & kerosene

Pressure (P2/P1) 14.61 15.92 18.03 18.02

Temperature (T2/T1) 8.37 9.63 9.52 9.50
Velocity (m/s) 1764.34 1909.8 1822.83 1820.61

Table 5
Summary of percentage deviation in the prediction of detonation velocity from the available literature.

Fuel Parameter Ana. Model CFD Model Yungster & K. Kailasanath B. D. Taylor et al. E. C. Maciel et al. NASA CEA
Radhakrishnan [47] [51] [52]
[50]

Hydrogen Detonation velocity (m/s) 2524.36 2300 2400 2380 2020 1996 1964.9
Ana. Error CFD Ana. Error CFD Ana. Error CFD Ana. Error CFD Ana. Error CFD
Error Error Error Error Error
5.1% 4.{% 6.0 % 3.3 % 24.9 % 13.8 % 26.4 % 15.2 % 28.4 % 17.04%
Methane 1759.64 1962 Shehab Elhawary S. M. Frolov et al. NASA CEA
et al. (80 % [35]
methane-air) [53]
1733 1600 to 1700 1858.2
Ana. Error CFD Ana. Error CFD Ana. Error CFD
Error Error Error
1.5 % 13.2 % 6.6 % 18.9 % 5.3 % 5.5 %
Kerosene 1827 1520 R. Kling [54] Huang [55] J. Kindraki [56] S. M. Frolo et al.
[57]
1450 1414.4 1750 1600e1800
Ana. Error CFD Ana. Error CFD Ana. Error CFD Ana. Error CFD
Error Error Error Error
26 % 4.8 % 29 % 7.46 4.4 % 13.1 % 7.4 % 10.5 %
Blend (H2þCH4) Ana. NASA -
Model CEA
1764.34 1909.8
Ana. Error
7.6%

are investigated for thermodynamic detonation parameter and fuels do not produce any considerable changes compared to pure
performance using blended fuel equation. These equations are the fuels.
first time used for high Mach number applications. Detonation Table 5 shows the summary of deviation in the prediction of
parameters of blended fuels of hydrogen kerosene and methane detonation velocity of fuels from available literature and NASA CEA
kerosene are almost similardthe highest detonation velocity of software. CFD results of hydrogen fuels having minor errors than
1822.83 m/s generated by a blend of hydrogen & kerosene. Blended analytical results. The maximum error in CFD analysis of hydrogen

6
M. Warimani, M.H. Azami, S.A. Khan et al. Energy 237 (2021) 121719

is 17.04 %. For methane fuel, both analytical and CFD errors

compared with works of literature are less than 18.9%. CFD results
are better than analytical results for kerosene fuel and have an error
percentage of less than 10.5% compared with the literature. Ac-
cording to the author's literature review on the pulse detonation
engine, no literature is available for blended fuels error analysis.
NASA CEA software having the option to blend hydrogen and
methane fuel. Error percentage between NASA CEA and our
analytical results for a blend of hydrogen 50 % and methane 50% are
less than 7.6% which is an acceptable range. For analytical results,
results from available experimental and computational literature
errors occurred because we have considered ideal conditions for
selected fuels in this research. CFD results have shown error
because of values considered for direct initiation. As explained in an
earlier section of the paper, we have considered the pressure, Fig. 6. Detonation wave propagation contour for pressure and temperature contour of
temperature, and spark size of the tube as 90 bar, 3700 K, and hydrogen-air.

0.035L, respectively, for all selected fuels. By varying these pa-

rameters, results can be varied. Hence it is concluded that the
percentage of error obtained for all fuels is within an acceptable
range.

4. Results and discussion

This study initially examined tube detonation's key aspects with

three pure fuels and blended fuels (Hydrogen 50 %þMethane 50 %,
Hydrogen 50 % þ Kerosene 50 %, and Kerosene 50 %þMethane
50 %). Air is used as the oxidizer for analytical and CFD analysis.
One-step chemistry was used in this study because it has been
sufficient to calculate reasonable estimates of thermodynamic
detonation parameters and performance parameters for both
analytical and CFD methods. The study then proceeded with the
comparison of detonation parameters with NASA CEA and the
published literature. The effects of different grid sizes were inves-
tigated. Furthermore, the gaseous hydrogen mixture was simulated
as pilot fuel and air as an oxidizer. The subsequent detonation tube
is tested with other fuels such as methane, kerosene, and blended
fuels.
Detonation in the computational analysis is observed by char-
acteristics like Chapman-Jouguet pressure and temperature and Fig. 7. Time is taken by detonation wave to reach tube end for different fuels.
detonation velocity. The Chapman-Jouguet pressure and tempera-
ture of hydrogen fuel at the time interval of 0.03 ms are shown in
Fig. 5. A reflection wave was formed, as illustrated in pressure
contours in Fig. 6. The pressure contour shown in Fig. 6 demon-
strates that pressure waves continually intensified with the release
of energy from chemical reactions. Fuels have different chemical
kinetics depends on molecular weight and other physical &
chemical properties. So, Chapman-Jouguet (CJ) pressure and tem-
perature values vary for each fuel.
Another critical trend noted in CFD analysis is the time taken by

Fig. 8. The thrust of PDE operating on different fuels.

Fig. 5. Chapman Jouguet pressure and temperature for hydrogen-air.

7
M. Warimani, M.H. Azami, S.A. Khan et al. Energy 237 (2021) 121719

fuels to reach tube end, as depicted in Fig. 7. The time taken by the of 1 and pressure and temperature of 1 atm and 300 K was 4160 s
detonation wave to reach the end of the tube in CFD analysis (open for computational analysis. Wintenberger et al. [60] found that
end) is 0.12 ms, 0.17 ms, 0.14 ms for hydrogen, kerosene, and fuel-based specific impulse for hydrogen-air is in between 3000 s
methane. This time varies because of variation in the heat release and 5000 s. Schauer et al. [62] results for fuel-based specific im-
rate of the selected fuel. In general, fuels that were having a higher pulse were in between 4200 and 7100 s using hydrogen-air. CFD
heat release rate consume less time. As the number of carbon atoms values are higher due to high initial pressure (90 bar). The resultant
increases, chemical reaction time also increases as the detonation analytical estimate of hydrogen fuel is higher than CFD and vali-
mentioned above wave propagates from the closed end towards the dation results because of basic assumptions implemented in the
open end. The detonation front is immediately followed by an analytical model. The impulse value may depend upon the initia-
expansion wave known as the Taylor waves. As the detonation exits tion method and values.
the tube, a reflected expansion wave propagates back towards the Till today commonly utilized fuels for pulse detonation engines
closed valve because the tube exit flow is subsonic. The reflected were hydrogen, ethylene, kerosene, or JET-A. The uniqueness of our
expansion wave causes decreases the pressure at the closed end of study is that this research focused on blended fuels and light hy-
the tube and again accelerates the open end's fluid. This process drocarbons like methane. According to the author's literature re-
continues for many sequences of wave propagation within the tube. view, the blended fuel chemical equation is first tested analytically
Finally, the pressure inside the tube approaches atmospheric for the pulse detonation engine. The typical pressure and temper-
[57e60]. Therefore, pressure decreases at the closed end of the ature ratios of detonations are 13e55 and 8 to 21, respectively [48].
tube, as shown in Fig. 7. This study selected all fuels produced pressure ratio and temper-
As shown in Fig. 8, The highest value of 1731.23 N thrust was ature ratio values between 13 to 55 and 8 to 21 for analytical and
shown by hydrogen, and the lowest value of 987.87 N was shown by CFD analysis, as shown in Tables 2e4. This research also proved that
kerosene in CFD analysis. In analytical analysis, the lowest value of in CFD analysis, size, pressure, and temperature of spark zone affect
1225.98 N and the highest value of 1731.23 N are shown by the pressure ratio, temperature ratio, and detonation velocity.
methane and hydrogen fuels. But in blended fuel analysis, there are Different fuels produced different pressure ratio values, tempera-
no considerable changes observed for the thrust parameter. CFD ture ratio, and detonation velocity for the same spark size, pressure,
thrust produced by pure hydrogen and kerosene showed less value, and temperature, as shown in Tables 2e4. Light fuels like hydrogen
and methane produces more value. This variation is in this research required less initial pressure and temperature to detonate. Some
because all fuels have the same high pressure, high temperature, studies on pulse detonation engines focused on pressure ratio,
and spark zone (90 bar, 3700 k, 0.035 L). In an actual analysis, detonation velocity, and some research focused on considering
different fuels required different initial values of pressure and single fuels, but this research considered and researched different
temperature. For example, light hydrocarbons like hydrogen fuels, detonation parameters, and performance parameters. These
required less activation energy, and heavy hydrocarbons like all results are obtained in a single paper.
kerosene require more activation energy. It is also proved in this
research that at selected high pressure and temperature, all fuels 5. Conclusions
detonate. The pattern of fuel-based specific impulse (Ispf) for all fuel
samples is shown in Fig. 9. Hydrogen fuel shows the highest values Analytical pure fuel & its blend of 50% and two-dimensional CFD
of 6842.16 s and 6036.91 s of specific impulse for analytical and simulation study were performed on detonation wave propagation
CFD. Compared to hydrogen, methane and kerosene have less dif- using hydrogen, methane, and kerosene fuels in a simple PDE
ference in Ispf values than analytical & CFD results. Fuel-based combustor. For analytical calculation, formulas were used. For CFD,
specific impulse values for hydrogen-air were validated against the combustion was initiated by the creation of a high temperature
Ma et al. [29] and Wintenberger [60]. Tangirala et al. [61] found that and pressure spark zone. The formation of the wave of reflection
fuel-based specific impulse for hydrogen-air at an equivalence ratio through pressure contours was observed. The implemented
analytical and CFD model is benchmarked via available numerical,
experimental, and NASA CEA results.
The following conclusions can be drawn:

1) Hydrogen fuel predicted the highest value of 2524.36 m/s and

2300 m/s detonation velocity for the analytical & CFD model,
respectively. Among all the three fuels, the highest fuel-based
specific impulse was achieved with hydrogen with the value of
6842.16 s and 6036.91 s for analytical and CFD methods,
respectively, at an equivalence ratio of 1.
2) The combustion products containing simple light molecules
tend to generate higher values of detonation velocity and
detonate easily. The lowest detonation velocity value of 1520 m/
s for kerosene air was observed in CFD analysis because heavy
hydrocarbons are less sensitive to detonation.
3) It is proved that; methane, kerosene, and 50 % blend of
hydrogen þ methane, hydrogen þ kerosene, and
methane þ kerosene can also be used as fuel for PDE as alter-
native fuels so that problems produced in PDE by using
hydrogen fuel can be eliminated.

This approach is viable for predicting PDE parameters; however,

the analytical and simulation results can be further extended to
Fig. 9. The specific impulse of PDE operating on different fuels. guide research efforts to develop a practical pulse detonation
8
M. Warimani, M.H. Azami, S.A. Khan et al. Energy 237 (2021) 121719

engine. [13] Vizcaino J. “Investigation of pulse detonation Engines ; theory , design and
analysis. 2013.
[14] materano Blanco G. Numerical modelling of pressure rise combustion for
Authorship statement reducing emissions of future civil aircraft. 2014.
[15] Varatharajan B. Study of ignition and detonation of hydrocarbon-air mixtures
with detailed and reduced chemical mechanisms. 2001.
All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors,
[16] Bussing Thomas, George Pappas. Pulse detonation engine theory and con-
and all authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the cepts. Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astronaut.; 1995. p. 421. e472.
work to take public responsibility for the content, including [17] Omprakas A. Numerical simulation of unsteady normal detonation combus-
participation in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of tion. The university of texas at arlington; 2018.
[18] Bussing T, Pappas G. Pulse detonation engine theory and concepts, vol. 165.
the manuscript. Mahammadsalman warimani, Muhammad Hanafi Reston, VA: Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astronaut. Inc.(Progress Astronaut. Aeronaut.;
Azami carried out the analytical and computational simulation, 1996. p. 421e72.
interpreted results and prepared a draft paper. Sher Afghan Khan, [19] Ekici S. Thermodynamic mapping of A321-200 in terms of performance pa-
rameters, sustainability indicators and thermo-ecological performance at
Ahmad Faris Ismail, Sanisah Saharin, and Ahmad Kamal Ariffin various flight phases. Energy 2020;202:117692.
supervised and revised the manuscript. All authors read and [20] Ekici S. Investigating routes performance of flight profile generated based on
approved the final manuscript. the off-design point: elaboration of commercial aircraft-engine pairing. En-
ergy 2020;193:116804.
On behalf of co-authors, I hereby declare that this work is [21] Debnath P, Pandey KM. Performance investigation on single phase pulse
original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently detonation engine using computational fluid dynamics. In: ASME interna-
under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no con- tional mechanical engineering congress and exposition, vol. 56444; 2013. p.
V015T16A020.
flicts of interest to disclose. Please address all correspondence
[22] Maciel EC, Marques CST. 2-D simulation with OH* kinetics of a single-cycle
concerning this manuscript to the corresponding author's email id pulse detonation engine. J Appl Fluid Mech 2019;12(4):1249e63.
hanafiazami@iium.edu.my. [23] Rondinelli S, Gardi A, Kapoor R, Sabatini R. Benefits and challenges of liquid
hydrogen fuels in commercial aviation. Int. J. Sustain. Aviat. 2017;3(3):
200e16.
Declaration of competing interest [24] Sogut MZ. Emission inventory of alternative fuels for a turboprop engine
considering flight conditions. Int. J. Sustain. Aviat. 2020;6(2):112e22.
[25] Yakovlieva A, Boichenko S, Lejda K. Evaluation of jet engine operation pa-
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal
rameters using conventional and alternative jet fuels. Int. J. Sustain. Aviat.
relationships which may be considered as potential competing 2019;5(3):230e48.
interests: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The corresponding authors want [26] Srihari P, Mallesh MA, Prasad G, Charyulu BVN, Reddy DN. Numerical Study of
to thank and acknowledge the International Islamic University Pulse detonation engine with one-step overall reaction model. Defence Sci J
2015;65(4).
Malaysia for supporting this research project. This research is [27] Ranasinghe K, Guan K, Gardi A, Sabatini R. Review of advanced low-emission
supported by FRGS Grant (FRGS19-063-0671). technologies for sustainable aviation. Energy 2019;188:115945.
[28] Ekici S, Altuntas O, Açıkkalp E, Sogut MZ, Karakoc TH. Assessment of ther-
modynamic performance and exergetic sustainability of turboprop engine
Acknowledgement using mixture of kerosene and methanol. Int J Exergy 2016;19(3):295e314.
[29] Ma F, Choi J-Y, Yang V. Propulsive performance of airbreathing pulse deto-
The corresponding authors want to thank and acknowledge the nation engines. J Propul Power 2006;22(6):1188e203. https://doi.org/
10.2514/1.21755.
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia and International Islamic [30] Wintenberger E, Shepherd JE. A model for the performance of air-breathing
University Malaysia for supporting this research project. This pulse detonation engines. In: 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion
research is supported by FRGS Grant (FRGS19-063-0671). conference and exhibit; 2003. p. 1e16.
[31] Zhang Q, Wang K, Dong R, Fan W, Lu W, Wang Y. Experimental research on
propulsive performance of the pulse detonation rocket engine with a fluidic
References nozzle. Energy 2019;166:1267e75.
[32] Wang K, Fan W, Lu W, Chen F, Zhang Q, Yan C. Study on a liquid-fueled and
_ Karakoç TH, Hepbasli A. Milestone of greening the flight path:
[1] Ekici S, Orhan I, valveless pulse detonation rocket engine without the purge process. Energy
alternative fuels. In: Sustainable aviation. Springer; 2020. p. 243e53. 2014;71:605e14.
[2] Azami MH, Savill M, Li Y. Comparison of aircraft engine performance and [33] Saqr KM, Kassem HI, Sies MM, Wahid MA. Ideal detonation characteristics of
emission analysis using alternative fuels. Int. J. Sustain. Aviat. 2017;3(43e63): biogashydrogen and-hydrogen peroxide mixtures. In: International confer-
1e21. ence on theoretical and applied mechanics, international conference on fluid
[3] Faheem M, Delvi HA, Khan SA, Kumar K, Kareemullah M. Effect of ethanol- mechanics and heat and mass transferdproceedings, corfu island, vol. 2010;
gasoline blends on performance, combustion and emission characteristics of 2010. p. 69e72.
spark ignition engine. J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci. 2019;62(2):209e20. [34] Wahid MA, Ujir H. Reacting shock waves characteristics for biogas compared
[4] Karakoç TH, Ozerdem MB, Sogut MZ. Advanced energy technologies in avia- to other gaseous fuel. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol. 1440; 2012.
tion. Pergamon; 2017. p. 90e9. no. 1.
[5] Caldwell N, Glaser A, Gutmark E. A review of pulse detonation engine research [35] Frolov SM. Natural-gas-fueled pulse-detonation combustor. J Propul Power
at the university of cincinnati. In: 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion 2010:1e6. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B34920.
conference & exhibit; 2007. p. 1e21. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-5697. [36] Lin L, Hu S, Hu Y, Xu G, Jiao H, Weng C. Experimental study on the detonation
[6] Soni SK, Singh A, Sandhu M, Goel A, Sharma RK. Numerical simulation to process of a pulse detonation engine with ionized seeds. Def. Technol.
investigate the effect of obstacle on detonation wave propagation in a pulse 2020;16:178e87.
detonation engine combustor. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 2013;3(3): [37] Singh D, Nishiie T, Qiao L. Experimental and kinetic modeling study of the
458e64. combustion of n-decane, Jet-A, and S-8 in laminar premixed flames. Combust
[7] Yungster S, Radhakrishnan K, Breisacher K. Computational study of NOx for- Sci Technol 2011;183(10):1002e26.
mation in hydrogen-fuelled pulse detonation engines. Combust Theor Model [38] Akram M, Saxena P, Kumar S. “Laminar burning velocity of methane  air
2006;10(6):981e1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830600876629. mixtures at elevated temperatures. Energy Fuel 2013;7.
[8] Driscoll R, Stoddard W, George AS, Gutmark E. Shock transfer and shock- [39] Xisto C, Petit O, Gro €nstedt T, Lundbladh A. Assessment of CO2 and NOx
initiated detonation in a dual pulse detonation engine/crossover system emissions in intercooled pulsed detonation turbofan engines. J Eng Gas Tur-
2015;53(1). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J053027. bines Power 2019;141(1).
[9] Falempin F, Bouchaud D, Daniau E. Pulsed detonation engine-Towards a [40] Murray AP, et al. Frequency and spark timing effects on thrust for pulse
tactical missile application. In: 36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion detonation engine. J Propul Power 2021;37(2):242e51.
conference and exhibit; 2000. p. 3473. [41] Alam N, Sharma KK, Pandey KM. “Effects of various compositions of the
[10] K. Kailasanath and D. A. Schwer, “High-fidelity simulations of pressure-gain fueldair mixture on the pulse detonation engine performance. Combust
combustion devices based on detonations,” pp. 1e10, doi: 10.2514/1.B36169. Explos Shock Waves 2019;55(6):708e17.
[11] Lu FK, Carter JD, Wilson DR. Development of a large pulse detonation engine [42] Nguyen VB, Teo CJ, Chang P-H, Li JM, Khoo BC. Numerical investigation of the
demonstrator. In: 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & liquid-fueled pulse detonation engine for different operating conditions.
exhibit ,31 july - 03 august; 2011. p. 1e15. no. August. Shock Waves 2019;29(8):1205e25.
[12] Rouser KP, King PI, Schauer FR, Sondergaard R, Hoke JL, Goss LP. Time- [43] Cecere D, Giacomazzi E, Ingenito A. ScienceDirect A review on hydrogen in-
resolved flow properties in a turbine driven by pulsed detonations. J Propul dustrial aerospace applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(20):
Power 2014;30(6):1528e36. 10731e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.04.126.

9
M. Warimani, M.H. Azami, S.A. Khan et al. Energy 237 (2021) 121719

[44] Gerasimov GY, Losev SA. Kinetic models of combustion of kerosene and its phase pulse detonation engine. Combust Flame 2003;133(4):441e50. https://
components. J Eng Phys Thermophys 2005;78(6):1059. doi.org/10.1016/s0010-2180(03)00043-9.
[45] Bussing T, Pappas G. An introduction to pulse detonation engines. In: 32nd [60] Wintenberger E, M C, Austin JM, S JE, Jackson S. An analytical model for the
aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit; 1994. p. 263. impulse of a single-cycle pulse detonation tube. J. Propuls. power 2004;19(1):
[46] Morris CI. Numerical Modeling of Single-Pulse Gasdynamics and performance 22e38.
of pulse detonation rocket engines. J. Propuls. power 2005;21(3):527e38. [61] Varatharajan B, Tangirala VE, Dean AJ, Chapin DM, Pinard PF. Pulsed deto-
[47] Kailasanath K, Patnaik G, Li C. The flowfield and performance of pulse deto- nation engine processes: experiments and simulations 2004;176(10).
nation engines. Proc Combust Inst 2007;29(2):2855e62. https://doi.org/ [62] Schauer F, Stutrud J, Bradley R. Detonation initiation studies and performance
10.1016/s1540-7489(02)80349-2. results for pulsed detonation engine applications. In: 39th aerospace sciences
[48] Stephen T. An Introduction to combustion concepts and applications. meeting and exhibit; 2001. p. 1129.
McGraw-Hill; 2011.
[49] Yildiz M, Çeper BA. Estimation of equilibrium combustion products of diesel-
biodiesel fuel blends using the developed solving process for C n H m and
NOMENCLATURE
CaHbOg fuel types. Int J Automot Mech Eng 2017;14(2).
[50] Yungster S, Radhakrishnan K. “Computational and experimental study of NOX A e Area (m2)
formation in hydrogen-fueled pulse detonation engines. In: 40th AIAA/ASME/ C e Sound speed (m/s)
SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference and exhibit 11 - 14 july 2004; 2004. T e Temperature (K)
p. 1e17. cp e Constant-pressure specific heat (J / kg-K)
[51] Taylor B, Kessler D, Gamezo V, Oran E. The influence of chemical kinetics on vD e Detonation velocity (m / s)
the structure of hydrogen-air detonations. In: 50th AIAA aerospace sciences cv e Constant-volume specific heat (J / kg-K)
meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition; 2012. vx e Axial velocity (m / s)
p. 979. h e Enthalpy (J / kg)
[52] Maciel EC, Marques CST. 2-D simulation with OH * kinetics of a single-cycle v e Specific volume (m3 / kg)
pulse detonation engine. J Appl fluid Mech 2019;12(4):1249e63. https:// hof e Enthalpy of formation (J / kg)
doi.org/10.29252/jafm.12.04.29593. Y e Mass fraction
[53] Elhawary S, Saat A, Wahid MA, Ghazali AD. Experimental study of using biogas m_ e Mass flow rate (kg / s)
in Pulse Detonation Engine with hydrogen enrichment. Int J Hydrogen Energy Y e Specific-heat ratio, cp/cv
2020. m_ 00 e Mass flow rate (kg / s)
[54] Kling R, Maman A. Detonation in shock-wave ignited kerosene-air mixture. r e Density (kg / m3)
In: Symposium (international) on combustion. vol. 8; 1961. p. 1096e104. no. Ma e Mach number
1. F e Equivalence ratio
[55] Huang Y, Tang H, Li J, Wang J. “Deflagration-to-detonation transition of MW e Molecular weight (kg / kmol)
keroseneeair mixtures in a small-scale pulse detonation engine. Proc Inst P e Pressure (Pa)
Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng 2011;225(4):441e8. Q e Heat addition, (J / kg)
[56] Kindracki J. “Study of detonation initiation in keroseneeoxidizer mixtures in R e Specific gas constant (J / kg-K)
short tubes. Shock Waves 2014;24(6):603e18. Ru e Universal gas constant (J / kmol-K)
[57] Frolov SM, Aksenov VS. “Deflagration-to-Detonation transition in a kerosene
e air mixture. Dokl Phys Chem 2007;416:261e4. https://doi.org/10.1134/ Subscripts
S0012501607090072.
[58] Gray JAT, et al. Thermodynamic evaluation of pulse detonation combustion for
gas turbine power cycles. In: ASME turbo expo 2016: turbomachinery tech- 1 e mixture at the upstream condition
nical conference and exposition; 2016. p. 1e9. 2 e mixture at the downstream condition
[59] Yan C, Zheng L, Zhang Q, Huang X, Fan W. Experimental investigation on two- 20 e mixture at the shock-wave trailing edge

10