Cited by 21Rocket and propulsion systems researchEnergetic Materials and CombustionFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer

Hypergolic ignition induced by head-on collision of bi-propellant droplets: Monoethanolamine-based fuel and hydrogen peroxide

Open access
Zhang, Dawei, Yu, Dehai, Yuan, Yueming, Zhang, Peng, Fan, Xuejun·2023·Fuel

Abstract

Hypergolic ignition by the binary collision of H 2 O 2 and Monoethanolamine (MEA)-NaBH 4 droplets has been experimentally studied with an emphasis on droplet inter-mixing, heat transfer, droplet swelling, and flame propagation. The entire ignition is phenomenally categorized into five stages. The H 2 O 2 droplet penetrates the MEA- NaBH 4 droplet after the collision and coalesces with it. The H 2 O 2 fluid rapidly restores its sphericity inside the coalesced droplet, which is theoretically proved to be driven by interfacial tension. The average measured restoration time is 14.0 ms. Large-scaled bubbles are generated at the interfacial structure, leading to swelling of the coalesced droplet. The existence of apparent interface tension tends to limit the rate of droplet inflation at the beginning. As more bubbles are produced, the interface tension wanes, and the droplet swells rapidly. The droplet surface expansion rate is identified via the gray-level information in recorded images. A theoretical model quantifying the swelling rate was established based on the underlying mechanism for the swelling of the reacting droplet, which can be attributed to the flash boiling of the superheated H 2 O 2 fluid. As bubbles accumulate inside the coalesced droplet, a dual-bell-shaped droplet configuration is formed. A flame ring structure is observed when the ignition occurs. Luminant flame sustains more than 10 ms until the fuel vapor is depleted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127788

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The H2O2 droplet penetrating the MEA-NaBH4 droplet in Stage II is driven by interfacial tension.

    “The distinct phenomenon of the H 2 O 2 droplet penetrating the MEA-NaBH 4 droplet shown in Stage II is proved to be driven by the interfacial tension based on the analysis of the development of the internal structure, as shown by the restored interfacial boundary in Figure 9b.”

    From Droplet collision of hypergolic propellants (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

  • The curvature ratio decreases abruptly from a relatively high value to a minimum approaching 1.0 at R3, indicating that the rebounding process has been completed.

    “It can be quantified by a curvature ratio of the initial colliding droplet to that of the interfacial boundary, R R (1/ )/(1/ ) od , in which the curvature ratio decreases abruptly from a relatively high value down to its minimum (approaching to 1.0) at R 3 , indicating that the rebounding process has been completed.”

    From Droplet collision of hypergolic propellants (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

  • The average measured time for droplet internal restoration τ_m is about 13.0 ms, which agrees well with the theoretical value τ_c.

    “For all collision cases, the average measured time for droplet internal restoration τ m is about 13.0 ms, which agrees well with the value of τ c .”

    From Droplet collision of hypergolic propellants (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

  • The MEA-NaBH4/H2O2 ignition delay time is about 50.0 ms, considerably larger than that of TMEDA/WFNA droplets at about 30.6 ms.

    “The bright kernel within the opaque area implies the occurrence of ignition, as shown in Figure 9a, and the IDT is about 50.0 ms, which is considerably larger than that of TMEDA/WFNA droplets (a faster reaction bipropellant system) at about 30.6 ms.”

    From Droplet collision of hypergolic propellants (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Internal restoration is independent of the colliding dynamical parameters.

    “internal restoration is independent of the colliding dynamical parameters”

    From Droplet collision of hypergolic propellants (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, D., Yu, D., Yuan, Y., Zhang, P., & Fan, X.
Affiliations
  • City University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Zhang, Dawei
  • Yu, Dehai
Venue
Fuel
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-06
Volume
342
Pages
127788
ISSN
0016-2361 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4320879062
Cited by
21
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fuel (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • 中国科学院力学研究所 (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee (CityU 15222421, 15218820)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (52006001, 52176134)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Rocket and propulsion systems research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Energetic Materials and Combustion
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Keywords
hypergolic ignition, hydrogen peroxide, monoethanolamine, sodium borohydride, droplet coalescence, droplet swelling, interfacial tension, flash boiling, bubble formation, flame propagation, droplet mixing, heat transfer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review