4.6 Article

On the use of oscillating jet flames in a coflow to develop soot models for practical applications

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 1309-1317

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2020.06.038

Keywords

Non-premixed flame; Soot; Acoustic forcing

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. DFG Research Fellowship [JO 1526/1-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to evaluate the potential of the HMOM soot model in turbulent flames and identifies limitations in predicting soot behavior, suggesting areas for improvement in soot nucleation, condensation, and oxidation formulations.
Oscillating jet flames in a coflow mimic certain features of turbulent flows in a simplified and controllable way. Our study aims to identify the potential of the HMOM soot model, which is validated in steady laboratory flames to be applied in practical, mostly turbulent flames. The model is found to accurately predict all the measurement parameters in a steady laminar sooting jet flame of ethylene/nitrogen mixture. When applied to an oscillating flame with the same fuel mixture, it was found that, while velocity, temperature, and OH fields are well predicted, the peak soot volume fraction is over predicted and occurs away from the experimentally measured location. The potential for soot model improvement is analysed by correlating the transient gas phase species, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, and soot formation or destruction behaviour. A need for improved soot nucleation, condensation, and oxidation formulations is identified. It is further found that the soot number density distribution in mixture fraction space is comparable to the transitional turbulent flame regime dominated by Kelvin-Helmholtz rollers. (c) 2020 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available