4.6 Article

Forcing of self-excited round jet diffusion flames

期刊

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 1191-1198

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2008.05.065

关键词

Non-premixed; Laminar; Absolute instability; Combustion instability

资金

  1. CNRS
  2. ANR Chaires d'Excellence program
  3. Gates Foundation
  4. IDRIS at Orsay, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this experimental and numerical study, two types of round jet are examined under acoustic forcing. The first is a non-reacting low density jet (density ratio 0.14). The second is a buoyant jet diffusion flame at a Reynolds number of I 100 (density ratio of unburnt fluids 0.5). Both jets have regions of strong absolute instability at their base and this causes them to exhibit strong self-excited bulging oscillations at well-defined natural frequencies. This study particularly focuses on the heat release of the jet diffusion flame, which oscillates at the same natural frequency as the bulging mode, due to the absolutely unstable shear layer just outside the flame. The jets are forced at several amplitudes around their natural frequencies. In the non-reacting jet, the frequency of the-bulging oscillation locks into the forcing frequency relatively easily. In the jet diffusion flame, however, very large forcing amplitudes are required to make the heat release lock into the forcing frequency. Even at these high forcing amplitudes, the natural mode takes over again from the forced mode in the downstream region of the flow, where the perturbation is beginning to saturate non-linearly and where the heat release is high. This raises the possibility that, in a flame with large regions of absolute instability, the strong natural mode could saturate before the forced mode, weakening the coupling between heat release and incident pressure perturbations, hence weakening the feedback loop that causes combustion instability. (C) 2009 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据