4.2 Article

Experimental and LES investigation of premixed methane/air flame propagating in a tube with a thin obstacle

期刊

COMBUSTION THEORY AND MODELLING
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 274-292

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13647830.2016.1218054

关键词

methane; air flame; LES; sub-grid scale viscosity models; sub-grid scale combustion models; flame-vortex interaction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51274205]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining (China University of Mining and Technology) [SKLCRSM10KFB13]
  3. Key Laboratory of Building Fire Protection Engineering and Technology of MPS [KFKT2014ZD04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, an experimental and numerical investigation of premixed methane/air flame dynamics in a closed combustion vessel with a thin obstacle is described. In the experiment, high-speed video photography and a pressure transducer are used to study the flame shape changes and pressure dynamics. In the numerical simulation, four sub-grid scale viscosity models and three sub-grid scale combustion models are evaluated for their individual prediction compared with the experimental data. High-speed photographs show that the flame propagation process can be divided into five stages: spherical flame, finger-shaped flame, jet flame, mushroom-shaped flame and bidirectional propagation flame. Compared with the other sub-grid scale viscosity models and sub-grid scale combustion models, the dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly model and the power-law flame wrinkling model are better able to predict the flame behaviour, respectively. Thus, coupling the dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly model and the power-law flame wrinkling model, the numerical results demonstrate that flame shape change is a purely hydrodynamic phenomenon, and the mushroom-shaped flame and bidirectional propagation flame are the result of flame-vortex interaction. In addition, the transition from corrugated flamelets to thin reaction zones is observed in the simulation.

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

4.2
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