0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Fuels & Combustion Technology

Shapes of Elliptic Methane Laminar Jet Diffusion Flames

[+] Author and Article Information
Jorge R. Camacho

Combustion and Propulsion Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,  The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 West University, El Paso, TX 79968-0521

Ahsan R. Choudhuri

Combustion and Propulsion Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,  The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 West University, El Paso, TX 79968-0521ahsan@utep.edu

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 128(1), 1-7 (Oct 21, 2004) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2032449 History: Received May 20, 2004; Revised October 21, 2004

Buoyant and nonbuoyant shapes of methane flames issued from a 2:1 aspect ratio elliptic tube burner were measured. Nonbuoyant conditions were obtained in the KC-135 microgravity research aircraft operated by NASA’s Johnson Space Center. A mathematical model based on the extended Burke-Schumann flame theory is developed to predict the flame length of an elliptic burner. The model utilizes Roper’s theoretical method for circular burners and extends the analysis for elliptic burners. The predicted flame length using the theoretical model agrees well with experimental measurements. In general for the elliptic burner the nonbuoyant flames are longer than the buoyant flames. However, measured lengths of both buoyant and nonbuoyant flame lengths change proportionally with the volumetric fuel flow rate and support the L vs Q correlation. The maximum flame width measured at buoyant and nonbuoyant conditions also show a proportional relation with the volumetric fuel flow rate. Normalized buoyant and nonbuoyant flame lengths of the elliptic burner correlate (LdRe) with the jet exit Reynolds number and exhibit a higher slope compared to a circular burner. Normalized flame width data show a power correlation (wd=cFrn) with the jet exit Froude number.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Measured g-level variations during a flight parabola

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Flame images: (a) buoyant major axis, (b) buoyant minor axis, (c) nonbuoyant major axis, (d) nonbuoyant major axis inverted CH filtered, (e) nonbuoyant minor axis, (f) nonbuoyant minor axis inverted CH filtered

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Buoyant and nonbuoyant flame lengths

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Correlation between the normalized flame length and the jet exit Reynolds number at buoyant and nonbuoyant conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of flame length at 1-g in the lab with the measurements at 1-g aboard the KC-135

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Buoyant and nonbuoyant flame widths

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Correlation between the normalized maximum flame width and the jet exit Froude number at buoyant conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Correlation between the normalized maximum flame width and the jet exit Froude number at nonbuoyant conditions

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In