4.7 Article

Turbulent burning velocity, burned gas distribution, and associated flame surface definition

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 133, 期 4, 页码 415-430

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0010-2180(03)00039-7

关键词

turbulent burning velocity; flame surface; optical diagnostics; bomb measurements

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental studies of premixed, turbulent, gaseous explosion flames in a fan-stirred bomb are reported. The turbulence was uniform and isotropic, while changes in the rms turbulent velocity were achieved by changes in the speed of the fans. Central spark ignitions created mean spherical flame propagation. The spatial distributions of burned and unburned gases during the propagation were measured from the Mic scattering of tobacco smoke in a thin planar laser sheet. The plane was located just in front of the central spark gap and was generated by a copper vapor laser operating at a pulse rate of 4.5 kHz. High-speed schlieren images also were captured simultaneously. The distributions of the proportions of burned and unburned gases around circumferences were found for all radii at all stages of the explosion, and mean values of these proportions were derived as a function of the mean flame radius. The flame brush thickness increased with flame radius. The way the turbulent burning velocity is defined depends on the chosen associated flame radius. Various definitions are scrutinized and different flame radii presented, along with the associated turbulent burning velocities. Engulfment and mass turbulent burning velocities are compared. It is shown how the latter might conveniently be obtained from schlieren cine images. In a given explosion, the burning velocity increased with time and radius, as a consequence of the continual broadening of the effective spectrum of turbulence to which the flame was subjected. A decrease in the Markstein number of the mixture increased the turbulent burning velocity. (C) 2003 The Combustion Institute. 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

4.7
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