• Infrared and Laser Engineering
  • Vol. 53, Issue 7, 20240112 (2024)
Jie MA1, Xiaobing WANG2, Hongli WANG3, Qinglin NIU1, and Shikui DONG4
Author Affiliations
  • 1School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, China
  • 2National Key Laboratory of Scattering and Radiation, Shanghai 200438, China
  • 3School of Information and Communication Engineering, North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, China
  • 4Key Laboratory of Aerospace Thermophysics of MIIT, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/IRLA20240112 Cite this Article
    Jie MA, Xiaobing WANG, Hongli WANG, Qinglin NIU, Shikui DONG. Evaluation and reconstruction of afterburning reaction kinetics of rocket exhaust plume[J]. Infrared and Laser Engineering, 2024, 53(7): 20240112 Copy Citation Text show less
    Comparison of flow structures between calculated and measured results
    Fig. 1. Comparison of flow structures between calculated and measured results
    Comparison of the spectral intensity between calculated and measured data
    Fig. 2. Comparison of the spectral intensity between calculated and measured data
    Computational domain and grid distribution
    Fig. 3. Computational domain and grid distribution
    Temperatures on the centerline for different grid numbers
    Fig. 4. Temperatures on the centerline for different grid numbers
    Comparison of plume temperature for five chemical reaction models
    Fig. 5. Comparison of plume temperature for five chemical reaction models
    Comparison of reaction release heat for five chemical reaction models
    Fig. 6. Comparison of reaction release heat for five chemical reaction models
    Comparison of temperatures on the centerline for different chemical reaction models
    Fig. 7. Comparison of temperatures on the centerline for different chemical reaction models
    Comparison of area cumulative temperature for different chemical reaction models
    Fig. 8. Comparison of area cumulative temperature for different chemical reaction models
    Mole fraction contours of CO2 and H2O for five chemical reaction models
    Fig. 9. Mole fraction contours of CO2 and H2O for five chemical reaction models
    Mole fraction of main species for five chemical reaction models
    Fig. 10. Mole fraction of main species for five chemical reaction models
    Mole fraction of CO and H2 in the plume radial direction for the five chemical reaction models
    Fig. 11. Mole fraction of CO and H2 in the plume radial direction for the five chemical reaction models
    Comparison of spectral intensity for five chemical reaction models and measured data
    Fig. 12. Comparison of spectral intensity for five chemical reaction models and measured data
    Comparison of IR images for five chemical reaction models
    Fig. 13. Comparison of IR images for five chemical reaction models
    Radiances within different bands for five chemical reaction models
    Fig. 14. Radiances within different bands for five chemical reaction models
    Comparison of reaction rate between reference and experiment data[21−41]
    Fig. 15. Comparison of reaction rate between reference and experiment data[2141]
    Error distribution of reaction rate between reference and measured data
    Fig. 16. Error distribution of reaction rate between reference and measured data
    Comparison of spectral intensity calculated and experimental data
    Fig. 17. Comparison of spectral intensity calculated and experimental data
    SpeciesMole fraction
    CO0.115
    CO20.136
    H20.056
    H2O0.4
    N20.096
    OH0.056
    HCl0.141
    Table 1. Mole fraction of BEM-Ⅱ species on the exit plane
    Reaction dynamics$ {\varepsilon }_{A} $$ {\varepsilon }_{n} $$ {\varepsilon }_{{E}_{a}} $
    R158.9%5.5%33.1%
    R273.5%0%13.2%
    R3100%5.27%3.88%
    R465.5%4.99%9.99%
    R581.5%100%21%
    R685.8%36.1%120%
    R729.8%0%0%
    R894.9%20%50%
    R953.2%0%0%
    R1050.1%25%100%
    Table 2. Difference of reaction kinetics for five CO/H2 systems
    Reaction dynamics$k = A{T^n}\exp ( - E/RT)$
    H*+O2↔OH*+O*1.2×1014T-0.91exp(−8335/T)
    H2+O*↔OH*+H*0.508×102T2.67exp(−3136/T)
    OH*+H2↔H2O+H*1×105T1.6exp(−1661/T)
    H*+H*+M↔H2+M6.53×1011T−1exp(0/T)
    CO+OH*↔CO2+H*4.76×104T1.288exp(35.2/T)
    O*+O*+M↔O2+M3.13×106exp(899/T)
    CO+O*+M↔CO2+M6.62×108exp(2297/T)
    O*+H*+M↔OH*+M1.23×107T−1exp(3140/T)
    H*+OH*+M↔H2O+M2.21×1016T−2exp(0/T)
    OH*+OH*↔O+H2O2.05×105T1.14exp(550/T)
    Table 3. Proposed chemical reaction kinetics of the H2/CO system
    Band range/μmMeasurements/W·sr-1Calculated value/W·sr-1Calculation error
    2.5-3.026.728.35.99%
    4.2-4.684.182.51.93%
    1.5-5.52352381.36%
    Table 4. Error distribution of radiances within the representative three bands
    Jie MA, Xiaobing WANG, Hongli WANG, Qinglin NIU, Shikui DONG. Evaluation and reconstruction of afterburning reaction kinetics of rocket exhaust plume[J]. Infrared and Laser Engineering, 2024, 53(7): 20240112
    Download Citation