4.4 Article

Heat flux and flow topology statistics in oblique and head-on quenching of turbulent premixed flames by isothermal inert walls

期刊

COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 191, 期 2, 页码 353-381

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00102202.2018.1467897

关键词

Flow topology; Wall heat flux; Wall Peclet number; Oblique flame quenching; Head-on quenching; Direct numerical simulations

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/K025163/1, EP/P022286/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/P022286/1, EP/K025163/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct numerical simulations (DNS) of oblique wall quenching of a turbulent V-flame and head-on quenching (HOQ) of a statistically planar flame by isothermal inert walls have been utilized to analyze the statistics of wall heat flux, flame quenching distance in terms of the distributions of flow topologies and their contributions to the wall heat flux. The flow topologies have been categorized into eight generic flow configurations (i.e., S1-S8) in terms of three invariants of the velocity gradient tensor (i.e., first, second and third P, Q, and R, respectively). It has been found that nodal (i.e., strain rate dominated) flow topologies are major contributors to the wall heat flux when it attains large magnitude in the HOQ configuration, whereas focal (i.e., vorticity-dominated) topologies contribute significantly to the wall heat flux in the case of oblique flame quenching. These differences in the heat transfer mechanisms contribute to the differences in wall heat flux and flame quenching distance between HOQ and oblique quenching configurations. The maximum wall heat flux magnitude in the case of oblique flame quenching has been found to be greater than that in the corresponding turbulent HOQ case. By contrast, the minimum wall Peclet number, which quantifies the flame quenching distance, in the case of oblique quenching has been found to be smaller than that in the case of HOQ.

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

4.4
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