JID: PROCI

ARTICLE IN PRESS [mNS;September 20, 2020;13:52]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 000 (2020) 1–8

www.elsevier.com/locate/proci

An empirical model for stagnation pressure gain in

rotating detonation combustors
Eric Bach a,∗, C. Oliver Paschereit b, Panagiotis Stathopoulos c,
Myles D. Bohon a
a Chair of Pressure Gain Combustion, Technische Universität Berlin, Mueller-Breslau-Str. 8, Berlin 10623, Germany
b Chair of Fluid Dynamics, Technische Universität Berlin, Mueller-Breslau-Str. 8, Berlin 10623, Germany
c Chair of Unsteady Thermodynamics in Gas Turbine Processes, Technische Universität Berlin, Mueller-Breslau-Str. 8,

Berlin 10623, Germany

Received 7 November 2019; accepted 20 July 2020

Available online xxx

Abstract

This work investigates the stagnation pressure gain in rotating detonation combustors (RDC) and its depen-
dency on the geometry and mass flux of the combustor. Using a Kiel probe to directly measure stagnation
pressure in the high-enthalpy exhaust stream, results are presented for a systematic variation of these param-
eters. The best-performing configuration achieved a pressure gain of −8%. A comparison with thrust-based
equivalent available pressure data from literature shows that the Kiel probe measurements are in good agree-
ment. It is observed that pressure gain increases with increasing air injector area, decreasing outlet throat
area, increasing combustor mass flux, and is seen to be dependent on the operating mode. The data are then
used to obtain an empirical model that describes pressure gain as a function of the three variables of injector
area ratio, outlet area ratio, and combustor mass flux. The model is compared with measurements in this
combustor and others, and is used to predict the pressure gain boundaries and to assess design corridors that
potentially achieve positive pressure gain.
© 2020 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rotating detonation engine; Pressure gain combustion; Equivalent available pressure; Stagnation pressure
measurement; Combustor design

1. Introduction power generation, mechanical drive, or propul-

The concept of pressure gain combustion
(PGC) promises to bring about a step change
in efficiency for combustion systems used for
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: eric.bach@tu-berlin.de (E. Bach).
sion applications. One implementation of PGC,
the rotating detonation combustor (RDC), has
received considerable attention in the last decade,
and, consequently, its technological maturation
has improved. Within an RDC, a detonation wave
travels continuously around an annular combus-
tion chamber in which fresh reactants are injected
from one side. The high-enthalpy reaction products

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.07.071
1540-7489 © 2020 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al., An empirical model for stagnation pressure
gain in rotating detonation combustors, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.
07.071
JID: PROCI
ARTICLE IN PRESS [mNS;September 20, 2020;13:52]

2 E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

exhaust through the other end of the chamber and

can be used for work extraction. An overview of
the technology and its early history is given by
Bykovskii et al. [1].
The benefit of detonation-based combustion
lies in a shock-driven compression of the reac-
tion products and lower entropy generation dur-
ing heat release compared to deflagration combus-
tion. It is desirable to quantify the performance
of such devices, i.e. the actual stagnation pressure
increase resulting from the combustion. However,
this process and the flow field in the chamber are
inherently unsteady and contain a wide variation
in terms of temperature, pressure, and velocity.
Schwer et al. [2] and Journell et al. [3] provide ex-
amples of the highly fluctuating flow properties, the
frequency of which is in the kHz range. Nonethe-
less, recent experiments [4] have shown the poten-
tial to realize performance gains and mitigate the
risks.
Kaemming and Paxson [5] proposed the use of
equivalent available pressure (EAP) as a perfor-
mance metric for PGC applications. Their method
“estimates the total pressure of a steady state com-
bustor that would provide the equivalent thrust
(or work) of a PGC device”. EAP can be calcu-
lated from simulations or experimental thrust stand
data. The authors further describe how variations
in the oxidizer injection area and outlet throat re-
striction influence EAP. In order to increase EAP,
they primarily suggest lowering injection pressure
loss by increasing the injector area, and restricting
the RDC outlet to increase chamber pressure and
lower the fill Mach number, thereby also promoting
mixing.
The concept of EAP was subsequently used by
Brophy and Codoni [6] to characterize an H2 /air
RDC. Employing a thrust stand, they were able
to replicate the trends predicted by Kaemming
and Paxson with respect to injector and throat de-
sign, but failed to demonstrate positive pressure
gain. A more detailed description of their experi-
ment is given by Ten Eyck [7]. In both works, the
authors additionally compare EAP values calcu-
lated from thrust measurements to static pressure
data from within the combustion chamber. They
show that stagnation pressure values obtained from
Mach number corrected static pressure yields EAP
results within ± 3.5% of the thrust-based ones.
Mach-corrected static pressure data were also em-
ployed by Fievisohn et al. [8] to demonstrate exper-
imental EAP measurements. Walters et al. [9] con-
ducted tests with an RDC operating on natural
gas and oxygen-enriched air, using a thrust stand
and two different injector and outlet designs. Their
results also approached the predicted values, but
they did not achieve positive pressure gain. In their
manuscript, they introduced the idea of collaps-
ing the two area ratios into one, the ratio of out-
let throat to oxidizer injection throat. This allowed
different RDC configurations to be described by a
Please cite this article as: E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al., An empirical model for stagnation pressure
gain in rotating detonation combustors, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.
07.071
Fig. 1. RDC setup used in experiments, highlighting the
reactant injection and mixing processes, examples for dif-
ferently sized outlet restrictions, and station designation
used for analysis.
single number, and subsequently compared. Some
years before the EAP concept was proposed, thrust
measurement data of an H2 /air RDC were pub-
lished by Rankin et al. [10], who employed three
different air injectors with an unrestricted chamber
outlet. By opening up the injector area, they were
able to reduce oxidizer manifold pressure while
maintaining thrust performance. Different injec-
tor and throat designs of an RDC operating on
CH4 and oxygen were also tested by Frolov et al.
[11] with a thrust stand.
The objective of this work is to investigate the
influence of combustor geometry and operating
condition on pressure gain for a wide range of con-
ditions. Some measurements of EAP and thrust are
available in the literature, as described above, how-
ever it remains difficult to directly compare differ-
ent configurations. Using the broad range of com-
bustor configurations in this work, a simple empir-
ical model will be developed to relate pressure gain
to relevant combustor parameters in order to bet-
ter estimate the performance potential of a specific
combustor design. This will be achieved by measur-
ing the stagnation pressure of an RDC’s exhaust
flow as demonstrated in previous work [12]. This
approach will allow for easy comparison with EAP
values and will endeavor to improve the compari-
son of results between different combustor geome-
tries and designs.
2. Experimental setup
The data presented in this manuscript were ob-
tained using TU Berlin’s modular RDC as shown
in Fig. 1. Air flows radially inward into the
combustion chamber through a slot of height g.
JID: PROCI
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 1
Overview of air gap height and outlet blockage ratio vari-
ations that were investigated, and the resulting A8 /A3.1
values.
A8 /A3.2 A3.1 /A3.2
0.144 0.230 0.288 0.460
1.00 6.958 4.349 3.479 2.174
0.84 5.845 3.653 2.923 1.827
0.75 5.219 3.262 2.609 1.631
0.67 4.662 2.914 2.331 1.457
0.50 3.479 2.174 1.740 1.087
Hydrogen is injected through 100 evenly distributed
holes of 0.5 mm diameter, located along the
perimeter of the outer combustor wall, perpendic-
ular to the direction of oxidizer flow as detailed in
Fig. 1. The combustion chamber has an outer di-
ameter D of 90 mm and a length L of 112 mm.
For this study, a gap width  of 7.6 mm was used.
The top plate of the centerbody is exchangeable
and was used to introduce differently sized restric-
tions at the exhaust plane, as highlighted in Fig. 1.
This manuscript follows the standard station des-
ignation as proposed by others [5,6,9], with the air
plenum as station no. 2, the air injector throat sta-
tion no. 3.1, the combustion annulus prior to det-
onation station no. 3.2, and the exit throat station
no. 8. The designation is also given in Fig. 1.
In order to investigate the influence of injec-
tor and throat designs, four different A3.1 /A3.2 of
0.144, 0.230, 0.288, and 0.460 (corresponding to
gap heights of 1.0, 1.6, 2.0, and 3.2 mm, respec-
tively) and five different outlet restrictions were in-
stalled. The resulting throat to injector area ratios
A8 /A3.1 are summarized in Table 1. Each configura-
tion was tested at various air mass flow rates from
0.1 to 0.55 kg · s−1 , increasing in 0.05 kg · s−1 in-
crements, at a constant equivalence ratio φ of 1.0.
Ignition is achieved with a pre-detonator tube op-
erating on hydrogen and air. The air and hydrogen
flows are allowed to settle prior to ignition for 3
and 1 s, respectively, establishing the flow field. Af-
ter 300 ms of run time, fuel flow is shut off. Previ-
ous experiments have shown that after 150 ms, the
device attains a steady operating mode. The anal-
ysis carried out in the following sections therefore
uses data captured in the last 100 ms of each run.
Each segment, containing around 500 wave revo-
lutions, was additionally checked for wave reversal
and mode shifts.
This RDC provides multiple ports for instru-
mentation in the reactant plena and along the
chamber wall. Three piezoelectric PCB 112A05
sensors, installed in a recessed cavity configuration,
were distributed circumferentially in the detona-
tion region to determine wave velocity and direc-
tion from the fluctuating static pressure signal. Two
more sensors of this type were placed in the axial
direction to resolve longitudinal pulsations. Four
piezoresistive Kulite XTEL190 sensors were dis-
Please cite this article as: E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al., An empirical model for stagnation pressure
gain in rotating detonation combustors, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.
07.071
[mNS;September 20, 2020;13:52]
3
tributed axially along the chamber wall in a cap-
illary tube attenuated pressure (CTAP) configura-
tion to determine the DC component of static pres-
sure. The CTAP probes were made of 1 m long
tubes with an inner diameter of 2 mm. One Kulite
and one PCB sensor were installed flush-mounted
in each reactant plenum to monitor plenum pres-
sure and possible feedback from the combustion
chamber. An L-shaped Kiel probe, connected to a
Kulite sensor, was placed ca. 2 mm upstream of
the exit throat to measure time-averaged stagna-
tion pressure in the exhaust flow. The probe with an
outer shroud diameter of 3.8 mm, a capillary diam-
eter of 0.5 mm, and a capillary length of 100 mm
was made by Vectoflow GmbH from a CoCr al-
loy and is suitable for an inflow angle variation of
60◦ . Due to the probe placement upstream of the
choked throat, the local axial Mach number is as-
sumed to be subsonic, preventing bow shock for-
mation at the probe’s leading edge. Because of the
high unsteadiness, embedded supersonic flow can
not be ruled out for the complete wave revolution.
Simulations by Kaemming and Paxson [5] have es-
timated the Mach number to top out at 1.3 for frac-
tions of a cycle, introducing the potential for an er-
ror of up to approximately 2.5%. This error mani-
fests as a loss term only and may indeed negatively
bias the measured stagnation pressure. The contri-
bution of non-axial energy to the stagnation pres-
sure was computed in the same study to ca. 3%
for a single wave operating mode. It should also be
noted that the time-averaging induced by the Kiel
probe and the viscous losses associated with the
probe’s internal geometry are not yet fully quan-
tified and the subject of ongoing research efforts.
Still, the Kiel probe method is a useful and reliable
tool for obtaining stagnation pressure data. All sen-
sors were sampled with a frequency of 500 kHz.
3. Results and discussion
The following results can be separated into three
subsections. First, the results of the experimental
measurements spanning a wide mass flux range for
a number of injector and ejector area ratios. The
operating mode will be characterized and the pres-
sure gain under these conditions will be measured.
These results will then be compared to known mea-
surements of EAP within the literature for various
combustor designs. Lastly, an empirical model will
be developed and fit to the measured data. This tool
will provide helpful design guidelines for designing
an RDC combustor with the objective of achieving
positive pressure gain with stable combustion.
3.1. Characterization of RDC performance
The operating mode at a given condition is iden-
tifiable by investigating the propagation velocity
of the dominant combustion wave. Although the
JID: PROCI
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 2. Speed of dominant combustion wave for different
air injectors at a constant throat restriction. Plotted for
reference are the speed of sound in the detonation prod-
ucts cdet , the chamber half-wave frequency band, and the
T1 frequency band of the air plenum.
boundaries of modal transition may shift depend-
ing on the specific configuration from Table 1, the
overall behavior is generally similar to the example
in Fig. 2.
Depending on the boundary conditions and
operating point, different modes have been ob-
served in RDCs, with the specific operation of this
RDC described by Bluemner et al. [13] and Bach
et al. [12]. Figure 2 highlights some of the vari-
ation in operating mode in terms of the propa-
gation velocity of the dominant combustion wave
as a ratio of the CJ speed. The figure plots val-
ues for four different air injectors as a function of
mass flux at a constant outlet restriction. A typi-
cal modal progression is exhibited by the most re-
strictive air injector (black data points in Fig. 2). At
the lower end of the mass flux range, with a wave
speed at or slightly above the speed of sound in the
detonation products, two counter-rotating waves
can be observed. As the mass flux increases, one
of these waves becomes dominant and its velocity
grows, while the counter-rotating components are
still present. This transition has been observed to
coincide with choking of the outlet. Eventually, the
wave becomes so dominant that the canonical sin-
gle detonation wave can be observed at wave speeds
of up to 90% of the CJ velocity.
Increasing the injector area (red and blue
data points in Fig. 2) at first leads to similar
modal transitions and wave speeds. Increasing the
mass flux past a certain point (275 kg · s−1 · m−2
for A8 /A3.1 = 0.23, 200 kg · s−1 · m−2 for
A8 /A3.1 = 0.288), however, results in longitudi-
nally pulsing combustion waves that fall within the
frequency band of an acoustic half-wave resonance
of the chamber (a more detailed explanation is
given by Bluemner et al. [14]). When the air in-
jector area further increases (green data points in
Fig. 2), the RDC’s behavior changes again. As the
fill Mach number is low, the flow field encourages
Please cite this article as: E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al., An empirical model for stagnation pressure
gain in rotating detonation combustors, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.
07.071
[mNS;September 20, 2020;13:52]
modes of counter-rotating waves that move at
the speed of sound in the combustion products,
and a clear single wave could not be established
within the operational envelope of this study.
Due to the less restrictive injector, substantial
communication between the air plenum and the
combustion chamber occurs. This manifests as a
first-order azimuthal acoustic mode in the plenum,
which in turn forces the whole chamber to exhibit
pulsations at this lower frequency around 1 kHz.
Such behavior is more pronounced in the high
mass flux range. Lastly, it should be noted that
multiple modes can be present in the combustor
simultaneously, and their combination determines
the overall behavior.
The pressure gain is expressed as the ratio be-
tween the total pressure measured by the Kiel probe
in the exhaust and the total pressure in the re-
actant injector as pt,8 /pt,2 − 1. The plenum stag-
nation pressure is approximated by a static pres-
sure measurement in a region where flow veloc-
ity is low (M < 0.05) and therefore the contribu-
tion of kinetic energy to total pressure is negligible
(p/pt > 0.998). Figure 3 presents the results for the
20 different configurations studied here. Each sub-
figure (a) - (d) plots data for one air injector and
the five different outlet restrictions over the range
of J3.2 . Only those operating points with a mass
flux above 150 kg · s−1 · m−2 are shown to ensure
a consistent choking condition at the exit throat.
It should be noted that combustion could not be
established for the configuration of largest injector
area without outlet restriction, these points there-
fore are omitted from Fig. 3d.
When comparing the individual data points,
some of the trends observed by Kaemming and
Paxson are visible. Increasing the injector area for
a given outlet restriction has a positive influence on
pressure gain due to the decreasing injection loss.
Increasing the outlet restriction for a constant in-
jector area increases chamber pressure and lowers
the fill Mach number, also promoting pressure gain.
A third influence can be identified from the varia-
tion of combustor mass flux. Increasing the mass
flux within a fixed geometry, and thereby increas-
ing the thermal power, consistently increases the
achieved pressure gain.
This approach, however, cannot account for sev-
eral other phenomena that are present in the op-
eration of the RDC. The combustor may exhibit
significantly different operating modes for the var-
ious configurations. The modal behavior also con-
tributes to the pressure gain. An extreme example
for this is the jump in the pressure gain curve for
A8 /A3.2 = 0.50 in Fig. 3a, which coincides with a
transition from a dominant single wave to two pairs
of counter-rotating waves. Additionally, the influ-
ence of the longitudinal and plenum-driven modes
that are present in the data displayed in Fig. 3d and
result in reduced pressure gain increase with high
mass flux.
JID: PROCI
ARTICLE IN PRESS [mNS;September 20, 2020;13:52]

E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Fig. 3. Stagnation pressure gain as a function of combustor mass flux for the studied RDC configurations.

While no net positive pressure gain could be re-

alized within the operational envelope of this study,
a value of pt,8 /pt,2 − 1 = −0.08 was achieved. This
is a promising outcome considering the unopti-
mized nature of the radially inward reactant in-
jection scheme and the variation in the operating
mode.

3.2. Comparison to EAP

The analysis in this manuscript relies on time-

averaged data gathered with a Kiel probe. Other
research groups have made use of thrust stands to
determine EAP. It is therefore of interest to deter-
mine whether the method applied here produces
similar results. To this end, the experimental re-
sults from the studies mentioned above were ex-
tracted and pressure gain values based on EAP
were calculated from the published data. This en-
compasses various different RDC designs. Brophy
and Codoni [6] and Ten Eyck [7] incorporated an
axial air injection in a 152.4 mm diameter RDC,
while Rankin et al. [10] used a radially-outward
air injector in a 153.9 mm RDC. Both experiments
used hydrogen and air. These reactants were also
employed in Schwer et al.’s [2] detailed simula-
tion of an RDC sized similar to that of Brophy
and Codoni. These simulations, however, defined
fully premixed injection across an area ratio of 0.2,
and placed an aerospike nozzle at the outlet. Wal-
ters et al. [9] studied axial and sting injectors for
methane and air in a 228 mm RDC. Methane in
combination with oxygen was also investigated by
Frolov et al. [11] in a 100 mm RDC coupled to a
conical nozzle. This presents a wide range of reac-
tant combinations and combustor layouts, which
can be compared to the Kiel probe data of this
manuscript. Additionally, previous experiments de-
scribed by Bach et al. [12] that coupled an RDC
to a set of nozzle guide vanes are included. Lastly,
the results of Kaemming and Paxson [5], which are
based on idealized 2-dimensional simulations and
thermodynamic cycle analysis (as described in [15]),
can serve as a best-case scenario benchmark.
Please cite this article as: E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al., An empirical model for stagnation pressure
gain in rotating detonation combustors, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.
07.071
Fig. 4. Comparison of various published data on RDC
stagnation pressure gain over the outlet throat to oxidizer
injection area ratio.
To condense the data and ease interpretation,
Fig. 4 plots the individual results as pt,8 /pt,2 − 1
over the outlet throat to oxidizer injection throat
area ratio A8 /A3.1 as proposed by Walters et al. [9].
Arranging the data in this manner yields a num-
ber of conclusions. Although the experiments dif-
fered significantly as pointed out above, a distinct
arrangement of the data points can be identified
throughout the whole range of A8 /A3.1 . Individ-
ual points that fall below the general trend (mainly
from Frolov et al. and Rankin et al.) do so primar-
ily due to severely restricted oxidizer injectors or
lack of an outlet restriction. Further, the stagnation
pressure gain measured with a Kiel probe is in ex-
cellent agreement with thrust stand data, this holds
true also for the nozzle guide vane experiment. The
pressure gain values suggested by Kaemming and
Paxson, plotted as black symbols and interpolated
with a fourth-order polynomial, however, are sig-
nificantly higher than the measured results, espe-
cially for A8 /A3.1 < 3. This can be explained by the
nature of their simulations, which not only omit
JID: PROCI
ARTICLE IN PRESS [mNS;September 20, 2020;13:52]

6 E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

various loss terms, but also assume that the RDC Table 2
is working strictly in the canonical single wave op- Model coefficients scaled for the studied parameter range.
erating mode. All of the cited studies report op- α1 α2 α3 β 1 · 103 β 2 · 103 β 3 · 103
erating modes that also contain counter-rotating
components or longitudinal pulsations, which may −0.60 1.18 −0.17 1.41 −1.04 −1.21
conceivably affect the eventual pressure gain as dis-
cussed above. It is therefore plausible that the ex-
perimental data fall short of the simulated values. natural parameters on which to fit the model.
Figure 4 has the merit of comparing different Additionally, from the results of Fig. 3, there
RDCs by their A8 /A3.1 value, as it allows for a quick appears to be an approximately linear trend in
assessment. However, this may lead to incomplete pressure gain as a function of J3.2 . Therefore, this
conclusions as it neglects additional details. For ex- set of three independent variables will be used to
ample, in this study two combinations exist with independently describe the injector geometry, the
A8 /A3.1 = 3.48: the 1.0 mm air gap with 50% re- ejector geometry, and the geometry and flow rate
striction, and the 2.0 mm air gap in an unrestricted within the combustion annulus. If the expression
combustor. At J3.2 = 290 kg · s−1 · m−2 , the former begins with a linear relationship of J3.2
attains a pressure gain of −0.26 and the latter one    
of −0.42. Hence, the injector and outlet boundaries pt,8 A3.1 A8 A3.1 A8
−1∝α , +β , J3.2
need to be taken into consideration individually for pt,2 A3.2 A3.2 A3.2 A3.2
a detailed analysis. This also neglects a parameter (1)
that is not displayed in Fig. 4: the influence of mass
flux and thermal power. Only the best performing α and β can be written as functions of only the
points, in general those with the highest mass flux, inlet and outlet geometry. Several models for these
are shown in the plot for each data set, and choos- terms as functions of A3.1 /A3.2 and A8 /A3.2 could
ing a different mass flux may lead to starkly differ- be proposed. For this simple approach, a linear re-
ing results. lation will be utilized such that
The presented data underline that pressure gain A3.1 A8
is dependent on a number of parameters, includ- α = α1 + α2 + α3 . (2)
A3.2 A3.2
ing the design of injector and outlet geometries,
and thermal power. It is also impacted by the op- Eq. (2) is similarly posed for β. By combining
erating mode. Designing an RDC for positive pres- Eqs. (1) and (2) for α and β, an empirical model for
sure gain therefore requires low-loss injectors with the pressure gain is obtained as
good mixing performance and some amount of pt,8 A3.1 A8
outlet restriction, however not all combinations − 1 = α1 + α 2 + α3
are equal. This is evident in the results presented pt,2 A3.2 A3.2
 
above, where combustion could not be established A3.1 A8
for unrestricted combustors with a large air injec- + β1 + β2 + β3 J3.2 . (3)
A3.2 A3.2
tor. Adding a restriction increases chamber pres-
sure and reduces fill Mach number, which in turn Six coefficients then describe the influence of the
aid in stabilizing a detonation wave however it also three independent variables and need to be solved.
changes the reflection of shock waves from the out- There are 250 available data points, excluding those
let. Control of the operating mode is also desir- where combustion could not be established and
able to prevent unwanted longitudinal pulsations those with a mass flux below 150 kg · s−1 · m−2 .
or plenum interaction. These modes especially pe- From the form of this model, the influence of each
nalize combinations with high A3.1 /A3.2 and low variable can be interpreted a priori from the ob-
A8 /A3.2 , i.e. when A8 /A3.1 falls below unity, which served and postulated effects. An increasing injec-
are most likely to exhibit positive pressure gain, but tor area ratio should lead to increased pressure
also promote the occurrence of acoustic modes and gain, the same applies to a decrease in throat area
strong shock reflections due to low injector stiffness ratio and an increase in mass flux. Therefore, α 2 is
and a choking condition at the outlet. expected to be positive, while α 3 should be nega-
tive. The sum of the term in parentheses multiplied
3.3. Pressure gain model by J3.2 should also be positive. Using an iterative
least squares estimation, the coefficients can be de-
The objective is now to develop a simple model termined with all data points as input. The result-
to describe the variation in pt,8 /pt,2 − 1, as the abil- ing empirical coefficients are summarized in Table 2
ity to better predict the performance of different and match the above statements. With these coeffi-
RDC configurations aids in the development and cients, the model achieves an R2 value of 95.7% and
analysis of these systems. The available data can residuals of ± 0.06.
be used to derive a model describing the pressure The residuals for the experimental data from
gain depending on multiple independent variables. Fig. 3 and the predicted values are plotted in Fig. 5.
The geometric ratios A3.1 /A3.2 and A8 /A3.2 are These residuals are sorted by A8 /A3.1 and colored
Please cite this article as: E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al., An empirical model for stagnation pressure
gain in rotating detonation combustors, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.
07.071
JID: PROCI
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 5. Residuals of pressure gain model compared to ex-
periment.
by J3.2 . As can be seen, the data are reasonably
well fitted by the simple model and there is not a
clear systematic error. Increasing the order for the
A3.1 /A3.2 and A8 /A3.2 terms to quadratic does yield
a higher R2 value of 99.2%, but requires 12 addi-
tional coefficients and the predictive capability of
such an expression is less confident considering the
trends shown in Fig. 3.
The model was further tested by applying it to
the data published by Ten Eyck [7], for which it was
able to predict the pressure gain values with max-
imum residuals of 0.05 ± 0.04 for configurations
that are within the parameter range of this study,
and with residuals of ± 0.1 for configurations that
required extrapolation. This is quite good consider-
ing the significantly different combustor size, flow
rate, injector and exit throat designs from those
used here.
This model can then be used to estimate the cur-
rent performance of the combustor and the neces-
sary features required to achieve positive pressure
gain. Figure 6 illustrates the predictive capabilities,
where the solid black line marks the threshold at
which a combustor operating at 290 kg · s−1 · m−2 ,
the highest mass flux investigated in this study,
would generate a positive pressure gain in the ge-
ometric parameter space. According to the simple
model, positive pressure gain would be achieved
with any combination of area ratios along this
line. For reference in light grey are lines of con-
stant pressure gain for the 290 kg · s−1 · m−2 case
in increments of 10%. The black dot marks the
best-performing configuration of this study at this
J3.2 . For it to achieve positive pressure gain, a
mass flux of 430 kg · s−1 · m−2 would be required
(the red line). Alternatively, its boundary condi-
tions could be altered so that it moves towards the
black line (e.g. decreasing A8 /A3.2 from 0.5 to 0.41
or increasing A3.1 /A3.2 from 0.46 to 0.52). An ad-
ditional design constraint is given by the dashed
line, as configurations with A8 /A3.1 < 1 (to the
right of the line) were observed to be difficult to
operate.
Obviously, with such a simple model, caution
should be exercised in the range of its application.
The model is only fit within the parameter space
Please cite this article as: E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al., An empirical model for stagnation pressure
gain in rotating detonation combustors, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.
07.071
[mNS;September 20, 2020;13:52]
7
Fig. 6. Lines of constant pressure gain (light grey) for the
290 kg · s−1 · m−2 case, with the zero threshold in solid
black. One configuration from this study is shown (black
marker) together with the minimum required mass flux (in
red) for positive pressure gain.
investigated in this study (area ratios as specified in
Table 1, J3.2 < 290 kg · s−1 · m−2 ), and extrapolat-
ing beyond this envelope will introduce further un-
certainty. Additionally, quantitative and systematic
differences in the scaling of α and β with differ-
ent injector geometries (e.g. radially outward, ax-
ial, or impinging jet designs) or different outlet ge-
ometries (e.g. ducted outlet, aerospike, or turbine
guide vanes) will impact the quality of the predic-
tion. Future work will endeavor to account for a
wider range of engine concepts, however even this
simple tool shows excellent potential to aid in the
combustor design and interpretation of combustor
performance.
4. Conclusions
This study applied Kiel probe measurements
to an RDC’s exhaust flow over a wide range of
operating conditions, oxidizer injector area ratios,
and outlet throat area ratios to determine the stag-
nation pressure of the high-enthalpy exhaust flow.
Operation of the device was characterized by dif-
ferent modes. Stagnation pressure gain across the
operational envelope were shown to depend mainly
on the mentioned area ratios and the combustor
mass flux. While no net positive pressure gain was
achieved, in some configurations the pt,8 /pt,2 − 1
value reached -0.08, which is a promising result.
It was demonstrated that a linear model derived
from 250 distinct data points is able to predict
the pressure gain of this device. Comparison of
this model with measurements from others, within
JID: PROCI
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx
the bounds of the parameter range investigated
here, agreed well despite significant combustor
design differences. This provides a useful tool
for assessing the performance of other operating
points and boundary conditions, and its physical
foundation can be justified from the observed
behavior.
The results provide certain preferential design
corridors for realizing positive pressure gain. Ear-
lier design guidelines by others could be validated,
and evidence was presented that the operating
mode also plays into the achieved pressure gain.
Successful RDC operation will require appropriate
methods for mode control, as well as design fea-
tures to suppress unwanted modes such as longitu-
dinal pulsations or combustion driven by plenum
acoustics. One step in this direction will be the ex-
tension of the pressure gain model to include terms
describing mode influence. This study will further
be extended by a variation of the combustion an-
nulus gap width  to investigate the region for
A8 /A3.1 < 1, the outlet geometry, and the equiva-
lence ratio φ.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known
competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the
work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their ap-
preciation to Dr. Alessandro Orchini for many
fruitful discussions. The investigations presented
here were conducted as part of the Luftfahrt-
forschungsprogramm V-3. The work was supported
by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Af-
fairs and Energy as per resolution of the German
Bundestag under grant number 20E1712. The re-
sponsibility for the content lies solely with its au-
thors.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material associated with this ar-
ticle can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.
1016/j.proci.2020.07.071
Please cite this article as: E. Bach, C. Oliver Paschereit, P. Stathopoulos et al., An empirical model for stagnation pressure
gain in rotating detonation combustors, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.
07.071
[mNS;September 20, 2020;13:52]
References
[1] F.A. Bykovskii, S.A. Zhdan, E.F. Vedernikov, J.
Propul. Power 22 (6) (2006) 1204–1216.
[2] D. A. Schwer, C. M. Brophy, R. H. Kelso, Pres-
sure characteristics of an aerospike nozzle in a rotat-
ing detonation engine, AIAA Paper 2018–4968, July
2018.
[3] C.L. Journell, R.M. Gejji, I.V. Walters, A.I. Lem-
cherfi, C.D. Slabaugh, J.B. Stout, J. Propul. Power 36
(4) (2020) 498–507.
[4] J.B. Stout, A. Baratta, Demonstrated low loss and
low equivalence ratio operation of a rotating det-
onation engine for power generation, AIAA Paper
2020-1173, 2020.
[5] T.A. Kaemming, D.E. Paxson, Determining the pres-
sure gain of pressure gain combustion, AIAA Paper
2018–4567, 2018.
[6] C.M. Brophy, J.R. Codoni, Experimental perfor-
mance characterization of an RDE using equivalent
available pressure, AIAA Paper 2019–4212, August
2019.
[7] J.A. Ten Eyck, Determination of Effective Available
Pressure of a Rotating Detonation Engine, NPS, 2019
Master thesis.
[8] R.T. Fievisohn, J.L. Hoke, A.T. Holley, Equiva-
lent available pressure measurements on a laboratory
RDE, AIAA Paper 2020–2285, 2020.
[9] I.V. Walters, C. Journell, A.I. Lemcherfi, R. Gejji,
S.D. Heister, C.D. Slabaugh, Performance character-
ization of a natural gas-air rotating detonation en-
gine at elevated pressure, AIAA Paper 2019–4214,
2019.
[10] B.A. Rankin, M.L. Fotia, D.E. Paxson, J.L. Hoke,
F.R. Schauer, Experimental and numerical evalua-
tion of pressure gain combustion in a rotating det-
onation engine, AIAA Paper 2015-0877, 2015.
[11] S.M. Frolov, V.S. Aksenov, V.S. Ivanov,
S.N. Medvedev, I.O. Shamshin, in: Detonation
Control for Propulsion, 2018, pp. 39–59.
[12] E. Bach, P. Stathopoulos, C.O. Paschereit, M.D. Bo-
hon, Combust. Flame 217 (2020) 21–36.
[13] R. Bluemner, M.D. Bohon, C.O. Paschereit,
E.J. Gutmark, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (14) (2019)
7628–7641.
[14] R. Bluemner, M.D. Bohon, C.O. Paschereit,
E.J. Gutmark, Combust. Flame 216 (2020) 300–315.
[15] T.A. Kaemming, M.L. Fotia, J.L. Hoke,
F.R. Schauer, J. Propul. Power 33 (5) (2017)
1170–1178.