See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309286832

Measuring the Reaction Rate of Hypergolic Propellants with a

Microelectromechanical Systems Reactor

Article  in  Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets · October 2016

DOI: 10.2514/1.A33634

CITATIONS READS

2 435

3 authors:

Hongjae Kang Jeongmoo Huh

Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials Korea Institute of Energy Research
22 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sejin Kwon
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
211 PUBLICATIONS   1,784 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Micro propulsion system View project

HiperLoc-EP View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hongjae Kang on 20 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS

Measuring the Reaction Rate of Hypergolic Propellants

with a Microelectromechanical Systems Reactor

Hongjae Kang,∗ Jeongmoo Huh,† and Sejin Kwon‡

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon 341-41, Republic of Korea
DOI: 10.2514/1.A33634
A novel experimental method to evaluate the ignition characteristics of hypergolic propellants was investigated.
Three hypergolic liquid fuels with different ignition characteristics were prepared, and their reaction rates with
hydrogen peroxide were measured in a microreactor fabricated using a microelectromechanical systems lithography
process. To prevent evaporation and boiling by the reaction heat, a low-concentration of hydrogen peroxide of 34.5 wt
% was used as a reference oxidizer. The reaction rates of the hypergolic fuels were obtained from temperature
Downloaded by KOREA ADVANCED INST OF SCIENCE on October 19, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33634

measurements in the microreactor and correlated with the ignition delays that were separately measured by drop tests
with high-test peroxide. The reaction rate measurements were fully compatible with the drop test results and proved
to be useful as an alternative method for the selection of hypergolic propellants by ignition characteristics.

Nomenclature in quantitatively evaluating the ignition performance of newly

A = preexponential factor, s−1
Ea = activation energy, J∕mol
k = rate constant, s−1
R = universal gas constant, J∕
K ⋅ mol
ΔS = entropy of activation, J∕
K ⋅ mol
T = temperature, K
wt % = weight percent
I. Introduction
H YPERGOLIC ignition is the phenomenon of the spontaneous
ignition of propellants when a fuel and oxidizer contact one
another. The hypergolic mechanism has been widely used for space
propulsion systems and military applications because a reliable and
repeatable ignition of propellants can be provided without additional
ignition devices [1]. Owing to the high development costs and heavy
safety precautions for handling conventional toxic hypergolic
propellants, such as hydrazine-based fuels, nitrogen tetroxide, and
nitric acid, the need for the use of nontoxic hypergolic propellants has
globally increased [2,3]. The enforcement of stricter safety
regulations and the budgetary cuts of national space agencies have
also encouraged the search for nontoxic hypergolic alternatives and
the development of environmentally friendly rockets [4–6].
According to preceding studies [7–9], the reaction rate of
hypergolic propellants in liquid-phase reactions should be
investigated because the initiation of hypergolic ignition is entirely
dependent on the chemical interactions. The evaluation of the
reaction rate of nontoxic hypergolic bipropellants then becomes
essential to prevent combustion instability caused by an excessively
long ignition delay in the startup phase of a thruster. However,
hypergolic ignition involves complex chemical and physical
interactions that are not yet fully understood. Difficulties still remain
Received 19 April 2016; accepted for publication 29 July 2016; published
online 18 October 2016. Copyright © 2016 by the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. All requests for
copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.
copyright.com; employ the ISSN 0022-4650 (print) or 1533-6794 (online) to
initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa.org/
randp.
*Graduate Student, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Department of Aerospace Engineering, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu;
newkhj878@kaist.ac.kr. Student Member AIAA.
†
Graduate Student, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Department of Aerospace Engineering, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu; jmheo@
kaist.ac.kr. Student Member AIAA.
‡
Professor, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Department
of Aerospace Engineering, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu; trumpet@kaist.ac.kr.
Member AIAA.
Article in Advance / 1
developed nontoxic hypergolic propellants due to the lack of
chemical material data. Although experimental approaches such as
impinging liquid jets and drop tests are normally conducted to
examine the ignition performance of hypergolic propellants, the tests
are unsuitable to closely investigate the chemical reactions that
govern the liquid-phase reactions in the initial stage of hypergolic
reactions. In addition, the conventional test approaches can fail to
provide repeatable data due to the effects of unpredictable physical
factors such as the mixing rates of fluids and the sizes of the atomized
droplets, which are hard to control precisely in every case.
The present study introduces a novel experimental method to
evaluate the reaction rate of liquid-phase hypergolic propellants
using a microreactor fabricated by a microelectromechanical systems
(MEMS) lithography process. The microreactor uses infinitesimal
quantities of reagents to emphasize the importance of exothermic
reactions in the liquid-phase condition so that the microfluidic system
helps minimize the dependence on kinetic energy and other physical
interactions involved in the existing experimental approaches. Thus,
the microreactor test is beneficial for providing a controlled
environment for mixing the fluids. A microreactor was used to study
the hypergolic interactions between N, N, N 0 , N 0 -Tetramethylethane-
1,2-diamine (TMEDA) and red fuming nitric acid (RFNA) [10,11].
However, their results were insufficient to evaluate the reaction rates
of the propellants and the evaluation procedures were not well
established. Moreover, due to the corrosive nature of RFNA, there
might be a material compatibility issue with silicon. Thus, in this
research, there was an effort to extend the aforementioned approach
to provide a more comprehensive understanding of liquid-phase
hypergolic reactions, especially for nontoxic hypergolic combina-
tions, nontoxic hypergolic fuels, and hydrogen peroxide as a green
oxidizer. A novel microreactor was designed with glass wafers that
have excellent chemical resistance and relatively excellent
manufacturability via a MEMS fabrication technique. In this work,
the ignition delays of newly developed nontoxic fuels with high-test
peroxide (HTP) were measured using drop tests. In an attempt to
estimate the reaction rates of the nontoxic hypergolic propellants in
liquid-phase reactions, the activation parameters between the fuels
and oxidizer were acquired by the quantitative interpretation of the
MEMS microreactor test results.
II. Experimental Approach
A. Preparation of the Nontoxic Hypergolic Propellants
As shown in Table 1, three different nontoxic hypergolic fuels were
prepared and divided into two groups: one reactive fuel and two
different catalytic fuels. Reactive fuel 1 was produced by blending a
strong reducing agent into compatible energetic hydrocarbon
solvents. The hydrocarbon mixture was composed of tetraethylene
glycol dimethyl ether, tetrahydrofuran, and toluene. Sodium
 2 Article in Advance / KANG, HUH, AND KWON

Table 1 Compositions of the nontoxic hypergolic fuels

Solvents Ignition source
Reactive fuel 1
Tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether Sodium borohydride
(CASRN: 143-24-8, purity 98  %) (CASRN: 16940-66-2, purity 98  %)
Tetrahydrofuran (CASRN: 109-99-9, purity 99.8%)
Toluene (CASRN: 108-88-3, purity 99.8%)
Catalytic fuel 1 (block 0)
Methanol Manganese(II) acetate tetrahydrate
(CASRN: 67-56-1, purity 99.9  %) (CASRN: 6156-78-1, purity 99  %)
Catalytic fuel 2
Kerosene (Jet-A1) Cobalt(II) 2-ethylhexanoate solution
TMEDA (CASRN: 110-18-9, purity 99%) (CASRN: 136-52-7, 65 wt % in mineral spirits)
Downloaded by KOREA ADVANCED INST OF SCIENCE on October 19, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33634

Table 2 Properties of the nontoxic hypergolic fuels

pool of the fuel. The ignition delay was defined as the elapsed time
from the contact of the propellants to the moment a flame appears for
Name Density, Viscosity, Heating value, the first time. It was measured by analyzing the time marks on the
kg∕m3 cP MJ∕kg consecutive images taken from high-speed charge-coupled device
Reactive fuel 1 952 2.32 30.83 (CCD) photography. The whole process was recorded using an
Catalytic fuel 1 (block 0) 914 1.34 17.15 X-Stream XS-3 CCD camera operating at 1000 frames∕s. A high-
Catalytic fuel 2 780 1.06 41.60 power halogen lamp illuminated the reaction process.

C. Fabrication Process of the MEMS Reactor

borohydride was used as a strong reducing agent, which can serve as A glass wafer was used as the material for the microreactor
an ignition source because metal hydride combusts immediately structure. Glass wafers are robust against chemical reactions and
when it contacts a strong oxidizer such as hydrogen peroxide via a have been used as a material for microscale propellant reactions
reduction-oxidation reaction. Tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether [16–19]. Figure 2 presents the MEMS fabrication process for a
was purchased from Alfa Aesar, Inc., and the other chemical microreactor. The film mask containing the designed microreactor
ingredients were purchased from Samchun Chemical, Inc. profiles was transferred to the chromium mask on the quartz wafer
Catalytic fuel 1 (called block 0), a reliable reference of nontoxic by lithography. The photosensitive glass was selectively exposed
hypergolic fuel reacting to HTP, was produced to compare the to 310 nm wavelength UV rays by the absorption of the chromium
candidate fuels prepared in this work. Block 0 was developed by the mask. Heat treatment at 585°C for 45 min caused the UV-exposed
Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in 1993 [12] and is a parts of the photosensitive glass to crystallize around the silver
catalytically promoted methanol obtained by mixing 78 wt% atoms. The etching speed for the parts exposed to the UV rays was
methanol with 22 wt % manganese(II) acetate tetrahydrate. Block 0 faster than those not exposed to the UV rays. Finally, the designed
may have been the first nontoxic hypergolic fuel applied as a rocket microreactor patterns were obtained by the etching process using
fuel in several ground firing tests with hydrogen peroxide [13,14]. hydrofluoric acid. Because the parts not exposed to the UV rays
The methanol and manganese(II) acetate tetrahydrate were purchased were also slightly etched and damaged, the surface of the wafer
from Sigma Aldrich Co., Ltd. was polished in preparation for the bonding process. The
Catalytic fuel 2 was produced by mixing kerosene (Jet-A1) with microreactor was composed of three layers: two glass wafers with
both a promotor solvent and a cobalt catalyst precursor. TMEDA,
a thickness of 1 mm and one glass wafer with a thickness of
used for the promotor solvent, is miscible with both nonpolar and
200 μm. The components were integrated by a thermal bonding
polar organic solvents, and it was also used as an energetic nontoxic
process at 500°C and under 2100 Pa for 12 h. Considering the
hypergolic fuel in preceding research [8]. Cobalt(II) 2-ethylhexanoate
affordable machining tolerances of MEMS manufacturing, the
solution was used as the catalyst precursor to exothermically
MEMS reactor had two injection channels for both the fuel and
decompose the hydrogen peroxide, and it is miscible with oils.
oxidizer with widths of approximately 100 μm, and the main
TMEDA was purchased from Alfa Aesar, Inc., and Cobalt(II)
2-ethylhexanoate solution was purchased from Sigma Aldrich Co., outlet channel had a width of approximately 200 μm.
Ltd. Table 2 provides the properties of the fuels. Density was
measured using ISO 649 Standard Hydrometers with an accuracy of
0.5 kg∕m3 , and an SV-10 VIBRO Viscometer was used to measure
viscosity. Their heating values were measured using a Parr 1261
bomb calorimeter.
The use of HTP as an environmentally benign oxidizer is expected
to grow in the future [15]. In this work, HTP (90–98 wt % H2 O2 ) was
used for the drop tests, and diluted hydrogen peroxide (34.5 wt %
H2 O2 ) was used for the MEMS microreactor test. The hydrogen
peroxide was purchased from Shanghai HABO Chemical
Technology Co., Ltd.

B. Drop Test Setup

Drop tests were conducted to investigate the hypergolicity of the
candidate fuels with HTP and measure the ignition delay. The
ignition delay with respect to hypergolic phenomenon can be
estimated by dropping a designated amount of oxidizer into a pool of
fuel or vice versa. As shown in Fig. 1, a syringe pump fed the oxidizer
through a needle and a droplet of liquid oxidizer was dropped on the Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the apparatus for the drop tests.
 Article in Advance / KANG, HUH, AND KWON 3

Fig. 2 Fabrication process of the MEMS microreactor.

D. MEMS Reactor Test Setup need to take additional safety precautions. In this work, the oxidizer
As shown in Fig. 3, a dual-channel syringe pump was used to to fuel mass ratio was approximately 1.1–1.4, depending on the
Downloaded by KOREA ADVANCED INST OF SCIENCE on October 19, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33634

simultaneously supply the reactants into the microreactor at a specific
volume flow rate. Because the dual-channel syringe pump was
introduced, the shear rate between the two streams should be the same
regardless of the flow rate. It is therefore expected that the rate of
diffusive transport can play a major role to mix the two streams in a
liquid-phase reaction, independent of shear-driven convective
transport. The fuel and oxidizer were supplied from 5 to 50 ml∕h,
which was the usable range of this microreactor test system. In the
microreactor tests, the Reynolds number of the flows ranged from 7 to
130, depending on the volume flow rate of the propellants. To prevent
evaporation and boiling by the reaction heat, a low-concentration
hydrogen peroxide at 34.5 wt % was used as a reference oxidizer. The
low-concentration hydrogen peroxide was produced by diluting HTP
with distilled water. Another benefit of using low-concentration
hydrogen peroxide was to avoid the occurrence of hypergolic ignition
in the flow channels of the microreactor, and there was therefore no
density of the fuels; this was a fuel-rich environment. The reactants
flowed in the channels fabricated in the MEMS reactor at a
microfluidic scale and contacted at a designated point. The reactants
continued to react until they reached the outlet, and therefore the
temperature rise measured at the outlet can be regarded as the final
reaction temperature in this microreactor system. An open-end k-type
thermocouple was located at the outlet to gauge the temperature rise.
III. Results and Discussion
A. Ignition Delay of Nontoxic Hypergolic Propellants in Drop Tests
An oxidizer droplet softly fell down to the fuel pool in all cases,
which indicates that hypergolic ignition occurred in a fuel-rich
environment. The diameter of the droplet was approximately 3.2 mm,
and the drop height was almost 12 cm from the surface of the pool.
Figures 4 and 5 present a series of consecutive high-speed images that

Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of the apparatus for the MEMS reactor tests.

Fig. 4 High-speed images of hypergolic ignition of reactive fuel 1 with a 90 wt % H2 O2 oxidizer droplet.
 4 Article in Advance / KANG, HUH, AND KWON

Fig. 5 High-speed images of hypergolic ignition of catalytic fuel 2 with a 95 wt % H2 O2 oxidizer droplet.

show the progress of hypergolic interactions between the candidate

fuels and the HTP. Hypergolic ignition occurred spontaneously upon
Downloaded by KOREA ADVANCED INST OF SCIENCE on October 19, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33634

contact of an oxidizer droplet on the surface of the pool, and the flame
spread outward to cover the entire liquid surface. Hypergolic ignition
was manifestly achieved for the two different prepared fuels with the
HTP. It had been already verified that catalytic fuel 1 (block 0) has
hypergolic properties with HTP [12].
The drop tests suggest that distinguishable ignition mechanisms
occurred between the catalytic fuels and the reactive fuel. When a
catalytic fuel came into contact with the oxidizer, the catalyst
dispersed in the catalytic fuel began to decompose the oxidizer,
thereby vigorously generating a reactive vapor above the surface of
the fuel. In the case of reactive fuel 1, a strong reducing agent
dissolved in the fuel directly reacted to the oxidizer and triggered
ignition via a reduction-oxidation reaction that was highly energetic
and immediate.
With a high concentration of hydrogen peroxide, the chemical
reactions became intense. Table 3 represents the reduction in the
ignition delays of the fuels as the concentration of hydrogen peroxide
was increased. Reactive fuel 1 had the shortest period of ignition Fig. 6 Variations in outlet temperature of nontoxic hypergolic fuels with
34.5 wt % H2 O2 at 15 ml∕h.
delay, which was attributed to the reduction-oxidation reaction that
provided shorter reaction paths than those of catalytic ignition [20].
Catalytic fuel 1 (block 0) ignited faster than catalytic fuel 2 because,
like H2 O2 , catalytic fuel 1 is a polar solvent (methanol). On the other incompletely reacted catalytic reactants continued to flow down from
hand, catalytic fuel 2 had the longest delay time because it is upstream. On the other hand, the fluctuations in the temperature
kerosene-based fuel and has relatively low polarity, which made it profile of reactive fuel 1 might have been caused by minute bubbles
more difficult to penetrate the oxidizer into the fuel. that were generated in the flow channels by exothermic reactions,
where the reaction temperature reached approximately 100°C. The
B. Quantitative Interpretation of the MEMS Reactor Test Results extent of the fluctuations could have been related to the intensity of
The main purpose of the MEMS reactor tests was to estimate the the chemical reactions that participated in the hypergolic interactions.
activation parameters involved in the liquid-phase hypergolic Figure 7 shows the reaction temperatures at the outlet in the steady
reactions and verify the correlation between the parameters and the state, which depended on the change in the volume flow rate of the
actual ignition performance of the hypergolic propellants. The results reactants. The reaction temperature rose as the volume flow rate was
from the microreactor tests are presented in Fig. 6. Each fuel increased. This is because the pressure inside of the flow channel was
exhibited a different rate of reaction and temperature rise at the outlet, locally raised as a result of the increase in the flow rates at the specific
even under the same conditions. After the transient response was volume. The local pressure rise could have encouraged one fluid to
examined, the profile of the reaction temperature reached a specific penetrate into the other, so that the contact surface between the two
value without wide variation, representing a steady-state condition. fluids became larger on a molecular scale. Thus, the fluids had more
For the catalytic fuels, once the reaction temperature rose to the peak opportunity to interact with each other, which led to more exothermic
value, it decreased slowly and became stable. In the case of reactive reactions. The final reaction temperatures of reactive fuel 1 were
fuel 1, the transient state was remarkably shorter than those of the higher than those of the catalytic fuels. To sustain stable combustion,
catalytic fuels. After the transient state, the reaction temperature was the fuel had to generate more energy than the global heat loss. It
maintained above the first peak value, and marginal fluctuations were therefore was expected that the catalytic fuels required more mass to
observed. There are two reasons why the reaction temperatures of produce enough energy to overcome the large amount of heat lost to
the catalytic fuels decreased after the transient state; considerable the atmosphere from the microreactor. Given that reactive fuel 1
heat losses between the reactor and atmosphere occurred, and produced the largest amount of heat energy under the same

Table 3 Variations in ignition delay of nontoxic hypergolic fuels depending on

concentration of H2 O2 a

Unit, ms 90 wt % 92 wt % 94 wt % 95 wt % 98 wt %
Reactive fuel 1 15.6 (2.4) No data 10.5 (2.2) 6.5 (1.4) 5 (0.8)
Catalytic fuel 1 (block 0) [12] No data 218 (99.8) 22.5 (2.5) No data 13.2 (1.5)
Catalytic fuel 2 No ignition No ignition 130 (13.5) 92 (8.5) 74.5 (5.5)

a
The standard deviations are given in parentheses.
 Article in Advance
Downloaded by KOREA ADVANCED INST OF SCIENCE on October 19, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33634
Fig. 7 Reaction temperature of nontoxic hypergolic fuels in steady state
with volume flow rate.
conditions, it is probable that reactive fuel 1 can combust with
hydrogen peroxide more sustainably.
The reaction temperatures of catalytic fuel 1 (block 0) were higher
than those of catalytic fuel 2 before the volume flow rate approached
30 ml∕h, but the situation was reversed when the volume flow rate
was further increased. Unlike catalytic fuel 1, which is mostly
composed of methanol, a polar substance, catalytic fuel 2 contains
more than 65 wt % of kerosene, which is a nonpolar solvent. Its
nonpolar nature provided poor miscibility between the fuel and
hydrogen peroxide, and it was therefore unable to immediately
penetrate the oxidizer. Because catalytic fuel 2 has a higher heating
value than catalytic fuel 1 (see Table 2), catalytic fuel 2 could generate
more heat energy than catalytic fuel 1, with fewer opportunities to
interact with the oxidizer. However, it is obvious that a time lag
occurred before a large amount of heat energy was produced. The
delay can directly affect the period of ignition delay during the startup
phase of the thruster, which can induce severe combustion
instabilities such as hard starts. The result implies that the miscibility
of fuel with hydrogen peroxide as a green oxidizer should be
considered in the process of developing a combination of nontoxic
hypergolic propellants to safely promote the initiation of hypergolic
ignition from liquid-phase reactions. Additionally, the temperature
rise of catalytic fuel 2 was probably limited at some point in the
microreactor test system because the fluid supply capability and the
dimension of the flow channels were restricted.
In this work, to develop a quantitative interpretation, the reaction
rate of the fuel was approximately estimated by the consumption of
oxidizer per the global reaction using the Arrhenius equation, which is
the empirical relation of the rate of chemical reactions and temperature
shown in Eq. (1), where [i] is the concentration of reactant i, k is the rate
constant required to determine the rate of chemical reactions, the
preexponential factor A indicates the total number of collisions
between molecules per second, Ea is the activation energy, and R is the
universal gas constant. Taking the natural logarithm of the Arrhenius
equation yields Eq. (2); when a reaction has a rate constant that obeys
the Arrhenius equation, a plot of ln
k versus T −1 presents a straight
line whose gradient and intercept can be used to estimate Ea and A:
For a reaction
fuel  oxidizer → products:
Reaction rate  kfueloxidizer
k  A exp
−Ea ∕RT (1)
Ea 1
ln
k  ln
A − (2)
R T
/ KANG, HUH, AND KWON 5
Fig. 8 Arrhenius plots of nontoxic hypergolic fuels with 34.5 wt %
H2 O2 .
Because hypergolic reactions are accompanied with complex
reaction processes, it is difficult to predict all of the generated
products to determine the reaction rate. For the rate of global
reactions, the rate constant k can be quantified by a characteristic
reaction time that indicates how fast the energy is produced, and the
characteristic reaction time is also related to the activation energy
barrier [21]. For this type of a plug-flow reactor, which has a first-
order reaction, it can be assumed that the characteristic reaction time
is the period of elapsed time until the temperature at the outlet
approaches 63.2% of the reaction temperature in steady state, where
the characteristic time gives 63.2% of completion, 1 − exp
−1 
0.632 [22,23].
Based on the experimental data, Fig. 8 presents the plots of the
natural logarithm of the Arrhenius equation and Table 4 provides
the activation parameters extracted from plotting the first-order fit of
the Arrhenius equations. The extrapolated flat line with a steeper
slope has a higher activation energy, and the line with the flatter slope
has a smaller amount of activation energy. The slope angle of reactive
fuel 1 is smaller than the others, which means the activation energy of
reactive fuel 1 had the lowest value. That indicates the reaction rate of
reactive fuel 1 is faster than the others because the hypergolic reaction
with a small activation energy barrier does not require much energy to
reach a transient state, so that reactive fuel 1 can consume the oxidizer
more quickly. The entropy of activation represents the change in
entropy when the propellants change from their initial state to the
transient state, considering how the energy within the molecules has
to be redistributed for the reaction to occur [24].§ Reactive fuel 1 has
the lowest value in terms of the entropy of activation among the
candidate fuels, which suggests that the fuel induced the least change
in entropy during the initial phase of the hypergolic reaction. Thus, a
relatively small quantity of energy within the molecules had to be
redistributed for the hypergolic reaction to occur, thereby producing
the fastest reaction rate.
In summary, reactive fuel 1 can produce more energy within the
shortest period of time, which indicates that faster and more reliable
hypergolic ignition can be achieved. Although catalytic fuel 2 has the
highest heating value among the candidate fuels, the fuel is not
suitable for mixing and rapidly reacting with hydrogen peroxide at
the initial state of the liquid-phase reaction due to its poor miscibility
with the oxidizer. From the quantitative interpretation, it was found
that the experimental results of the novel testing method using a
MEMS microreactor corresponded to the variations in the ignition
delays of the fuels obtained from the drop tests. It has been
demonstrated that the liquid-phase hypergolic reaction rate can
reflect the ignition performance of the hypergolic propellants.
§
Data available online at http://employees.csbsju.edu/cschaller/Reactivity/
MLnSub/lsTSparam.htm [retrieved 13 September 2016].
 6 Article in Advance
Table 4 Experimental data of the Arrhenius plots
Activation energy Entropy of activation
Ea ,a kJ∕mol ΔS,a J∕
K ⋅ mol
Reactive fuel 1 35.4 60.5
Catalytic fuel 1 (block 0) 72.9 171.7
Catalytic fuel 2 83.6 198.3
a
Ea and ΔS
 ln
A × R were obtained from the plots of the logarithm of the
Arrhenius equations [24].
IV. Conclusions
An experimental approach to evaluate the rates of hypergolic
ignition liquid-phase chemical reactions should be considered for
nontoxic liquid hypergolic propellants. The reaction rate is an important
factor that predominantly influences the initiation of the hypergolic
Downloaded by KOREA ADVANCED INST OF SCIENCE on October 19, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33634
ignition of liquid-phase propellants. A microreactor fabricated using a
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) lithography process was
introduced as a novel testing method to estimate the activation
parameters involved in liquid-phase hypergolic reactions and to verify
the correlation between the parameters and the actual ignition
performance of the hypergolic propellants. Three different types of
nontoxic hypergolic fuels were prepared, and their hypergolicities were
tested with high-test peroxide using drop tests in terms of ignition delay.
It was found that the reactive fuel containing a strong reducing agent
ignited faster and released more energy than the catalytic fuels. The
results obtained from the MEMS microreactor tests corresponded to the
results of the drop tests; the reactive fuel had a lower activation energy
barrier than those of the catalytic fuels. This suggests that the reactive
fuel can achieve faster and more reliable hypergolic ignition initiated
by liquid-phase reactions. Using a quantitative interpretation, it was
demonstrated that the rate of the liquid-phase hypergolic reactions can
reflect the ignition performance of nontoxic hypergolic propellants. By
performing this research, which is a simple, risk-free, and reliable
experimental approach, a MEMS microreactor can be used to estimate
and compare the reaction rates of nontoxic hypergolic propellants. It is
also expected that the MEMS microreactor can be potentially used as a
transformative testing scheme.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Basic Science Research
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea, which
is funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT (Information and
Communication Technology) and Future Planning (NRF-
2015R1A2A1A15055373).
References
[1] Silva, G. D., and Iha, K., “Hypergolic Systems: A Review in Patents,”
Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management, Vol. 4, No. 4,
Oct.–Dec. 2012, pp. 407–412.
doi:10.5028/jatm.2012.04043812
[2] Zhang, Q., and Shreeve, M. J., “Ionic Liquid Propellant: Future Fuels for
Space Propulsion,” Chemistry: A European Journal, Vol. 19, No. 46,
2013, pp. 15,446–15,451.
doi:10.1002/chem.v19.46
[3] Haeseler, S. D., Bombelli, V., Vuillermoz, P., Lo, R., Maree, T., and
Caramelli, F., “Green Propellant Propulsion Concepts for Space
Transportation and Technology Development Needs,” Proceedings of
Second International Conference on Green Propellants for Space
Propulsion, ESA SP-557, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, June 2004.
[4] Schmidt, E. W., and Wucherer, E. J., “Hydrazine(s) vs. Nontoxic
Propellants—Where Do We Stand Now?,” Proceedings of Second
International Conference on Green Propellants for Space Propulsion, ESA
SP-557, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, June 2004.
[5] Gotzig, U., Krauss, S., Welberg, D., Fiot, D., Michaud, P., Desaguier, C.,
Casu, S., Geiger, B., and Kiemel, R., “Development and Test of a 3D
Printed Hydrogen Peroxide Flight Control Thruster,” Proceedings of
Propulsion and Energy Forum, 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, Orlando, FL, July 2015.
doi:10.2514/6.2015-4161
[6] Gohardani, A. S., Stanojev, J., Demaire, A., Anflo, K., Persson, M.,
Wingborg, N., and Nilsson, C., “Green Space Propulsion: Opportunities
View publication stats
/ KANG, HUH, AND KWON
and Prospects,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 71, Nov. 2014,
pp. 128–149.
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2014.08.001
[7] Alfano, A. J., Mills, J. D., and Vaghjiani, G. L., “Highly Accurate
Ignition Delay Apparatus for Hypergolic Fuel Research,” Review of
Scientific Instruments, Vol. 77, No. 4, 2006, Paper 045109.
doi:10.1063/1.2188909
[8] Dambach, E. M., Cho, K. Y., Pourpoint, T. L., and Heister, S. D.,
“Ignition of Advanced Hypergolic Propellants,” Proceedings of 46th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA
Paper 2010-6984, Nashville, TN, July 2010.
[9] Farmer, M. J., Mays, L. O., Hampton, C. S., and Smith, J. E., “Reaction
Rates for Hypergolic Propellants Using Chemical Delay Times,”
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2004, pp. 372–376.
doi:10.2514/1.9262
[10] Saksena, P., Tadigadapa, S., and Yetter, R. A., “Study of Hypergolic
Propellants Using Micro-Reactors,” Proceedings of 15th International
Conference on Miniaturized Systems for Chemistry and Life Sciences,
Seattle, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2011.
[11] Saksena, P., Tadigadapa, S., and Yetter, R. A., “Control of Liquid
Hypergolic Reactions in Micro-Reactors Using Diffusional Mixing,”
Proceedings of PowerMEMS, Atlanta, GA, Dec. 2012.
[12] Pourpoint, T. L., and Anderson, W. E., “Hypergolic Reaction
Mechanisms of Catalytically Promoted Fuels with Rocket Grade
Hydrogen Peroxide,” Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 179,
No. 10, 2007, pp. 2107–2133.
doi:10.1080/00102200701386149
[13] Pourpoint, T. L., and Rusek, J. J., “Novel Organometallic Propellants for
Hypergolic Applications,” Proceedings of Fifth International Hydrogen
Peroxide Propulsion Conference, 2002.
[14] Austin, B. L., Heister, S. D., and Anderson, W. E., “Characterization of
Pintle Engine Performance for Nontoxic Hypergolic Bipropellants,”
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2005, pp. 627–635.
doi:10.2514/1.7988
[15] Musker, A. J., Rusek, J. J., Kappenstein, C., and Roberts, G. T.,
“Hydrogen Peroxide—From Bridesmaid to Bride,” Proceedings of
Third ESA International Conference on Green Propellants for Space
Propulsion, Poitiers, France, Sept. 2006.
[16] Lee, J. K., and Kwon, S. J., “Mixing Efficiency of a Multilamination
Micro Mixer with Consecutive Recirculation Zones,” Chemical Science
Engineering, Vol. 64, No. 6, 2009, pp. 1223–1231.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2008.11.011
[17] Seo, D. B., Lee, J. K., and Kwon, S. J., “The Development of the
Micro-Solid Propellant Thruster Array with Improved Repeatability,”
Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, Vol. 22, No. 9,
2012, Paper 094004.
doi:10.1088/0960-1317/22/9/094004
[18] Lee, J. K., Kim, K. H., and Kwon, S. J., “Design, Fabrication, and
Testing of MEMS Solid Propellant Thruster Array Chip on Glass
Wafer,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, Vol. 157, No. 1, 2010,
pp. 126–134.
doi:10.1016/j.sna.2009.11.010
[19] Lee, J. S., Kim, S. K., and Kwon, S. J., “Fabrication of Catalyst-
Insertion-Type Microelectromechanical Systems Monopropellant
Thruster,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2012,
pp. 396–404.
doi:10.2514/1.B34287
[20] Davis, S. M., and Yilmaz, N., “Advances in Hypergolic Propellants:
Ignition, Hydrazine, and Hydrogen Peroxide Research,” Advances in
Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 2014, 2014, Paper 729313.
doi:10.1155/2014/729313
[21] Liu, Y., Zybin, S. V., Guo, J., van Duin, A. C., and Goddard, W. A.,
“Reactive Dynamics Study of Hypergolic Bipropellants: Monome-
thylhydrazine and Dinitrogen Tetroxide,” Journal of Physical
Chemistry B, Vol. 116, No. 48, 2012, pp. 14,136–14,145.
doi:10.1021/jp308351g
[22] Holman, J. P., Experimental Methods for Engineers, 7th ed.,
McGraw–Hill, New York, 2001, pp. 19–23, 368–377, 91–94, 183–190.
[23] Figliola, R. S., and Beasley, D. E., Theory and Design for Mechanical
Measurements, Wiley, New York, 1991, pp. 36–73.
[24] Claussen, J. C., Daniele, M. A., Geder, J., Pruessner, M., Mäkinen, A. J.,
Melde, B. J., Twigg, M., Verbarg, J. M., and Medintz, I. L., “Platinum-
Paper Micromotors: An Urchin-Like Nanohybrid Catalyst for Green
Monopropellant Bubble-Thrusters,” ACS Applied Materials and
Interfaces, Vol. 6, No. 20, 2014, pp. 17,837–17,847.
doi:10.1021/am504525e
J. R. Brophy
Associate Editor