← Back to Projects

Miniature Shock Tube Combustion Experiments & Gas Chromatography Analysis

KAUST VSRP Research Project | King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia | Oct – Dec 2025

📄 Published Paper

J. Subburaj, T. A. Kashif, M. Vogl, S. Maddi, Z. Alyousef & A. Farooq, "A CFD Study of the Combustion Process in a Miniature Shock Tube at Different Oxyhydrogen Fill Pressures," AIAA SCITECH 2026 Forum, Orlando, FL, 12–16 January 2026.

DOI:  10.2514/6.2026-2606

Project Overview

As part of a Visiting Student Research Program (VSRP) at KAUST under the supervision of Prof. Aamir Farooq, I contributed experimental work to a study on combustion processes in a miniature shock tube. The research group developed a three-dimensional CFD model of a 6 mm-diameter, 165 mm-long shock tube charged with hydrogen–oxygen mixtures at varying equivalence ratios and nitrogen dilution levels. My contributions focused on two key experimental activities: deflagration-regime shock tube experiments with precisely controlled gas mixtures and gas chromatography (GC) analysis of electrolysis-generated gas samples. These experimental datasets provided the boundary conditions and validation data used in the published AIAA paper.

Part I — Shock Tube Experiments with Controlled Gas Mixtures

Motivation

Initial validation of the CFD model revealed a major discrepancy: simulated pressure peaks reached roughly 120 bar, whereas experimental measurements showed only about 30 bar — a fourfold difference. After thorough analysis, the deviation was attributed to uncertainties in the molar composition of the explosive gas mixture used in earlier experiments. To resolve this, new experiments were designed using a precisely prepared mixture with known compositions, allowing a direct, apples-to-apples comparison with the simulation boundary conditions.

Gas Mixture Preparation

A fuel-rich oxyhydrogen mixture with an equivalence ratio of Φ = 1.5 was prepared in a large mixing vessel. The vessel and manifold piping were evacuated before each gas was introduced via partial pressures. The mixture was left to homogenise for over three hours.

Species Partial Pressure [Torr] Cumulative Pressure [Torr] Mole Fraction [%]
H₂ 1 208 1 208 38.65
O₂ 402.67 1 610.67 12.88
N₂ 1 514.79 3 125.46 48.47

Experimental Procedure

Experiments were conducted at three initial fill pressures — 1, 2 and 3 bar — with five repetitions per level (15 runs total). For each run:

  1. All valves closed except valve 2; manifold and shock tube evacuated to ~1 Torr.
  2. Valve 1 opened slowly to introduce the target pressure of the gas mixture.
  3. Both valves closed; manifold evacuated again.
  4. Mixture ignited inside the shock tube.
  5. Pressure signals recorded via a calibrated PicoScope 7 data acquisition system.
  6. Combusted gases exhausted; procedure repeated for next cycle.

Results

No detonation events were observed at any fill pressure. The combustion remained in the deflagration regime throughout all 15 experiments. The absence of deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) may be attributed to:

  • Fuel-rich conditions (Φ = 1.5) reducing reactivity compared to stoichiometric mixtures
  • High nitrogen dilution (48.47 mol%) increasing the heat capacity and potentially quenching flame propagation
  • Fill pressures (1–3 bar) possibly insufficient to promote DDT in this tube geometry and mixture composition

This finding provided essential calibration data for the CFD model and confirmed the deflagration-regime behaviour predicted by the simulations at these conditions.

Part II — Gas Chromatography Analysis of Electrolysis Products

Objective

To quantify the actual composition of gas produced by an in-situ water electrolyser used to fill the shock tube, a systematic gas chromatography (GC) campaign was conducted. Knowing the exact molar fractions of H₂, O₂ and residual N₂ is critical for defining accurate CFD boundary conditions.

Instrumentation & Calibration

  • Instrument: Agilent 7950b Gas Chromatograph with thermal conductivity detector (TCD)
  • Calibration: Custom calibration curve built from a self-prepared H₂/N₂/O₂ calibration gas with known concentrations
  • Two air samples were analysed before each batch to verify instrument stability and accuracy

Sample Collection

  1. Shock tube flushed with N₂ and sealed.
  2. Shock tube connected to the electrolysis setup; electrolyser started.
  3. Upon reaching the target pressure (6, 12, 14, 16 or 18 psi), valve opened briefly to equilibrate, then closed once the pressure stabilised.
  4. Shock tube disconnected from the electrolyser and connected to the GC inlet for analysis.
  5. Procedure repeated — five replicates per pressure level, 25 samples total.

Data Processing

Raw mass-percentage data from the GC were converted to mole percentages using molar masses (H₂ = 2 g/mol, O₂ = 32 g/mol, N₂ = 28 g/mol). Data visualisation was performed with MATLAB.

Results

Species Mass % Range
H₂ 0.02 – 0.18 %
O₂ 0.003 – 1.02 %
N₂ 0.42 – 2.24 %

The residual nitrogen in all samples confirmed that the flushing procedure does not fully eliminate atmospheric contamination — an important factor for accurate simulation boundary conditions. Considerable variability in H₂ and O₂ concentrations across pressures and replicates was observed, likely due to fluctuations in the electrolysis process, differences in sample collection timing, or incomplete gas mixing. Converting from mass to mole percentages significantly increases the apparent hydrogen fraction owing to its low molar mass (2 g/mol vs. 28–32 g/mol for N₂ and O₂).

Tools & Skills

  • Miniature Shock Tube Operation & Combustion Testing
  • Gas Chromatography (Agilent 7950b with TCD)
  • Calibration Gas Preparation & Custom Calibration Curves
  • PicoScope 7 Data Acquisition
  • MATLAB Data Processing & Visualisation
  • Vacuum Systems & Partial-Pressure Gas Mixing
  • Water Electrolysis / Oxyhydrogen Generation

Paper & Links