Determining Hypergolic Ignition Delay Time Using a High-Speed … · 2019. 12. 18. · Determining...
1
Determining Hypergolic Ignition Delay Time Using a High - Speed Camera Arielle Bledsoe and Ariel Kelrikh Mentor: Dr. Daniel Komornik and Prof. Alon Gany Faculty of Aerospace Engineering – Technion, Israel, 2019 Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Dr. Daniel Komornik and Professor Alon Gany for hosting and guiding us through our research in his laboratory. We would also like to thank the foundations and donors for their generous support of the SciTech Program. Introduction Materials Results Citations Abstract Conclusions In a hypergolic combustion, fuel and an oxidizer spontaneously combust without the aid of an external ignition source. As opposed to solid propellants, hypergolic fuels allow engines to be turned off and on again. Fuel and oxidizer gases spend very small amounts of time before being expelled. Therefore, every millisecond makes a difference. We want the combustion to happen in the combustion chamber so that the chemical energy can be translated to thrust. While hypergolic ignition is spontaneous, it still takes a few milliseconds. Determining this time delay is crucial for performance. • NewRocket Hypergolic fuel • Hydrogen Peroxide (oxidizer) While hypergolic ignition is spontaneous, it still takes a few milliseconds. Since determining this time delay is crucial for rocket performance, multiple experimental tests were conducted with four different H 2 O 2 concentrations (90%, 83%, 79%, and 72%). As expected, a lower oxidizer concertation caused longer delay time, so it is recommended to use concentrations of over 80%. Experiments show high repeatability. 1. Less oxidizer concertation causes longer delay time 2. We recommend using concentrations of over 80% since they showed consistent results and short delay time 3. Not all data was useful (sometimes the drop of oxidizer did not fall exactly on top of the fuel) 4. Experiments show high repeatability, over 30 tests 5. Data shows a small span of values per concentration, the values span in a ±1 ms due to the camera’s limitations 6. Data does not correlate in a linear way * Notice that data could have large margin of error due to volume measurement equipment [1] - Alfano, Angelo J., et al. “Highly Accurate Ignition Delay Apparatus for Hypergolic Fuel Research.” AIP Publishing, American Institute of Physics, 1 Jan. 1970, aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2188909 [2] - Heister, Stephen D. “Investigation into the Hypergolic Ignition Process Initiated by Low Weber Number Collisions.” Aerospace Research Central, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 19 Mar. 2013, arc.aiaa.org/doi/full/10.2514/1.B34627 y = 5.6x -4.4 R² = 0.90 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% TIME FROM T0 (MSEC) CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (%) GAS EMISSION TIME y = 6.4x -4.7 R² = 0.99 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% TIME FROM TO (MSEC) FIRST FLAME APPEARANCE CONCENTRATION OF HYRDROGEN PEROXIDE (%) y = 8.5x -4.6 R² = 0.93 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% TIME FROM T0 (MSEC) CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (%) FIRST FLAME THAT TURNS INTO FIRE y = 10.5x -5.2 R² = 0.90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% TIME FROM T0 (MSEC) CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (%) FULL FLAME Fig. 5 - 90% T = 9 ms Gas emission Fig. 6 - 79% T = 18 ms Gas emission Fig. 8 - 79% T = 22 ms First flame Fig. 7 - 90% T = 11 ms First flame Fig. 1 – Gas emission time for changing hydrogen peroxide concentrations Light blue are averages Fig. 2 – First flame appearance time for changing hydrogen peroxide concentrations Light blue are averages Fig. 3 – First flame that turns into fire for changing hydrogen peroxide concentrations Light blue are averages Fig. 4 – Full flame for changing hydrogen peroxide concentrations Light blue are averages Fig. 9 - 90% T = 16 ms First flame that becomes a fire Fig. 10 - 79% T = 28 ms First flame that becomes a fire Fig. 11 - 90% T = 23 ms Full flame Fig. 12 - 79% T = 39 ms Full flame Methods • 6-10 trials for four separate concentrations – 90%, 83%, 79%, and 72% • A Pasteur pipette was used to drop a single drop of H 2 O 2 onto the fuel • A KronTech Chronos 1.4 High-speed camera was used to record the combustion and measure the delay time Based on academic papers [1-2], the following times of interest were defined • T 0 = fuel and oxidizer contact • T 1 = appearance of gas (see Figs. 1,5 and 6) • T 2 = first flame (see Figs. 2,7 and 8) • T 3 = first flame that turns into fire (see Figs. 3,9 and 10) • T 4 = fully developed flame (see Figs. 4,11 and 12) • Chronos 1.4 high-speed camera V0.3 • Drop-on-drop experimental setup
Transcript of Determining Hypergolic Ignition Delay Time Using a High-Speed … · 2019. 12. 18. · Determining...
Determining Hypergolic Ignition DelayTime Using a High-Speed Camera
Arielle Bledsoe and Ariel KelrikhMentor: Dr. Daniel Komornik and Prof. Alon Gany
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering – Technion, Israel, 2019
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Dr. Daniel Komornik and Professor Alon Gany for hosting and guiding us through our research in his laboratory. We would also like to
thank the foundations and donors for their generous support of the SciTech Program.
Introduction
Materials
Results
Citations
Abstract
Conclusions
In a hypergolic combustion, fuel and an oxidizer spontaneously combust withoutthe aid of an external ignition source. As opposed to solid propellants, hypergolic
fuels allow engines to be turned off and on again. Fuel and oxidizer gases spendvery small amounts of time before being expelled. Therefore, every millisecondmakes a difference. We want the combustion to happen in the combustion
chamber so that the chemical energy can be translated to thrust. While hypergolicignition is spontaneous, it still takes a few milliseconds. Determining this timedelay is crucial for performance.
• NewRocket Hypergolic fuel• Hydrogen Peroxide (oxidizer)
While hypergolic ignition is spontaneous, it still takes a few milliseconds. Since determining this time delay is crucial for rocket performance,multiple experimental tests were conducted with four different H2O2 concentrations (90%, 83%, 79%, and 72%). As expected, a lower oxidizer
concertation caused longer delay time, so it is recommended to use concentrations of over 80%. Experiments show high repeatability.
1. Less oxidizer concertation causes longer delay time2. We recommend using concentrations of over 80% since
they showed consistent results and short delay time3. Not all data was useful (sometimes the drop of oxidizer
did not fall exactly on top of the fuel)
4. Experiments show high repeatability, over 30 tests5. Data shows a small span of values per concentration, the
values span in a ±1 ms due to the camera’s limitations
6. Data does not correlate in a linear way
* Notice that data could have large margin of error due to
volume measurement equipment
[1] - Alfano, Angelo J., et al. “Highly Accurate Ignition Delay Apparatus for Hypergolic Fuel Research.” AIP Publishing, American Institute of Physics, 1 Jan. 1970, aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2188909
[2] - Heister, Stephen D. “Investigation into the Hypergolic Ignition Process Initiated by Low Weber Number Collisions.” Aerospace Research Central, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 19 Mar. 2013, arc.aiaa.org/doi/full/10.2514/1.B34627
y = 5.6x-4.4
R² = 0.90
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
70%75%80%85%90%95%
TIM
E FR
OM
T0
(M
SEC
)
CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (%)
GAS EMISSION TIME
y = 6.4x-4.7
R² = 0.99
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
70%75%80%85%90%95%
TIM
E FR
OM
TO
(M
SEC
)
FIRST FLAME APPEARANCE
CONCENTRATION OF HYRDROGEN PEROXIDE (%)
y = 8.5x-4.6
R² = 0.93
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
70%75%80%85%90%95%
TIM
E FR
OM
T0
(M
SEC
)
CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (%)
FIRST FLAME THAT TURNS INTO FIRE
y = 10.5x-5.2
R² = 0.90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
70%75%80%85%90%95%
TIM
E FR
OM
T0
(M
SEC
)
CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (%)
FULL FLAME
Fig. 5 -90%
T = 9 msGas emission
Fig. 6 -79%
T = 18 msGas emission
Fig. 8 -79%
T = 22 msFirst flame
Fig. 7 -90%
T = 11 msFirst flame
Fig. 1 – Gas emission time for changing hydrogen peroxide concentrationsLight blue are averages
Fig. 2 – First flame appearance timefor changing hydrogen peroxide concentrations
Light blue are averages
Fig. 3 – First flame that turns into firefor changing hydrogen peroxide concentrations
Light blue are averages
Fig. 4 – Full flame for changing hydrogen peroxide concentrations
Light blue are averages
Fig. 9 -90%
T = 16 msFirst flame
that becomes a fire
Fig. 10 -79%
T = 28 msFirst flame
that becomes a fire
Fig. 11 -90%
T = 23 msFull flame
Fig. 12 -79%
T = 39 msFull flame
Methods• 6-10 trials for four separate concentrations – 90%, 83%,
79%, and 72%
• A Pasteur pipette was used to drop a single drop ofH2O2 onto the fuel
• A KronTech Chronos 1.4 High-speed camera was used
to record the combustion and measure the delay timeBased on academic papers [1-2], the following times ofinterest were defined
• T0 = fuel and oxidizer contact• T1 = appearance of gas (see Figs. 1,5 and 6)• T2 = first flame (see Figs. 2,7 and 8)
• T3 = first flame that turns into fire (see Figs. 3,9 and 10)• T4 = fully developed flame (see Figs. 4,11 and 12)
• Chronos 1.4 high-speed camera V0.3
• Drop-on-drop experimental setup
