Uncertainties in Thrust and EAP Measurements of a Rotating Detonation Combustor with Axial Air Inlet

Feleo, Alexander; Chacon, Fabian; Gamba, Mirko

doi:10.2514/6.2020-3856

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Attaching weights via winches to the sled to apply a force is simple and low in cost (see, e.g. Feleo et al [16] or Kato et al [20]). In the present study, a direct calibration force is applied in the form of a screw jack loading the aft end of the combustion chamber, as shown in 3a.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lastly, the probe represents a point measurement instead of mass-averaging, which poses challenges to accurately describe stagnation pressure. Most of the current research on pressure gain comes from the thrust stand-based EAP method that provides an area-integrated measurement, although the influence of base drag measurement and the assumption of uniformly choked flow at the exit plane cause inevitable uncertainty [16]. This method also requires an increased calibration effort.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental Comparison of Different Pressure Gain Measurement Techniques for RDCs

Kayser

Wei

Bach

et al. 2023

AIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rotating Detonation Combustors (RDC) feature an inherently unsteady internal flow field with characteristic frequencies in the kHz range, which makes accurately quantifying the achieved pressure gain challenging. The present study therefore considers three methods to determine the stagnation pressure of the high-enthalpy outlet flow: Mach-corrected Capillary Tube Averaged Pressure (CTAP) measurements of 𝒑 t,4 , direct Kiel probe measurements of 𝒑 t,8 , and Equivalent Available Pressure (EAP) measurements using a thrust stand. The methods differ significantly in their relative accuracy and the amount of required instrumentation. A parametric study with all three approaches was conducted at TU Berlin over a range of configurations and operating conditions to compare the acquired data. To this end, a 5 kN class thrust stand was used along with a calibration method and base drag measurement setup. Further, a low Mach number correction was implemented for Mach-corrected CTAP and EAP data at conditions where the M 8 = 1 assumption breaks down. The EAP data displays the highest amount of scattering due to the large number of calibration that need to be taken into account. The base drag pressure distribution on the outlet flanges, which can amount to 12.78% and more of EAP, varies significantly with the operating condition. All three methods generally agree well with one another, with EAP being the most conservative. Kiel probe measured stagnation pressure is on average about 5% higher than EAP and 3% higher than the Mach-corrected 𝒑 t,4 . This underlines that methods with reduced instrumentation may be useful for pressure gain estimation. Nevertheless, it also shows that a standardized data reporting method may be required in the community to compare different experiments.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%