4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Influence of g-jitter on a laminar boundary layer type diffusion flame

期刊

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
卷 30, 期 -, 页码 519-526

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2004.08.066

关键词

diffusion flame; microgravity; g-jitter; boundary layer; low Reynolds flow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A numerical study was conducted to analyze the effect of g-jitter on micro-gravity flames. A boundary layer laminar diffusion flame was used as a test case. This configuration is commonly used to study flame spread in microgravity, thus it is essential to understand the role of g-jitter in these flames. Furthermore, the role of buoyancy increases with the stream-wise coordinate permitting a systematic study of the impact of acceleration perturbations with a reduced number of experimental results. The evolution of experimental stand-off distances defined during parabolic flights compared well, in a qualitative manner, with numerical simulations, validating the aerodynamic aspects of the model. A systematic study using a sinusoidal function showed that perturbations characterized by high frequencies (> 1 Hz) do not affect the flame stand-off distance. This is independent of the amplitude within the range of typical perturbations observed during parabolic flights. Perturbations occurring at lower frequencies significantly affected the flame geometry. Averaging over time through periods much longer than the perturbation cycle did not eventually reveal departure from purely zero-gravity flames. Fuel and oxidizer velocities have opposite effects on the sensitivity of the flames to gravity fluctuations. An increase in oxidizer velocity results in a sensitivity decrease. The influence of the multiple parameters of the problem can qualitatively be combined within a previously reported non-dimensional group. Nevertheless, it cannot account for the influence of frequency. (c) 2004 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