0
Research Papers

Blowoff and Reattachment Dynamics of a Linear Multinozzle Combustor

[+] Author and Article Information
Wing Yin Kwong

Institute for Aerospace Studies,
University of Toronto,
North York, ON M3H 5T6, Canada
e-mail: penelope.kwong@mail.utoronto.ca

Adam M. Steinberg

Institute for Aerospace Studies,
University of Toronto,
North York, ON M3H 5T6, Canada
e-mail: adam.steinberg@gatech.edu

Manuscript received June 28, 2018; final manuscript received July 12, 2018; published online September 14, 2018. Editor: Jerzy T. Sawicki.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141(1), 011015 (Sep 14, 2018) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-18-1395; doi: 10.1115/1.4041070 History: Received June 28, 2018; Revised July 12, 2018

This paper describes the coupled flow and flame dynamics during blowoff and reattachment events in a combustor consisting of a linear array of five interacting nozzles using 10 kHz repetition-rate OH planar laser-induced fluorescence and stereoscopic particle image velocimetry (S-PIV). Steady operating conditions were studied at which the three central flames randomly blew-off and subsequently reattached to the bluff-bodies. Transition of the flame from one nozzle was rapidly followed by transition of the other nozzles, indicating cross-nozzle coupling. Blow-off transitions were preferentially initiated in one of the off-center nozzles, with the transition of subsequent nozzles occurring in a random order. Similarly, the center nozzle tended to be the last nozzle to reattach. The blow-off process of any individual nozzle was similar to that for a single bluff-body stabilized flame, though with cross-flame interactions providing additional means of restabilizing a partially extinguished flame. Subsequent to blowoff of the first nozzle, the other nozzles underwent similar blow-off processes. Flame reattachment was initiated by entrainment of a burning pocket into a recirculation zone, followed by transport to the bluff-body; the other nozzles subsequently underwent similar reattachment processes. Several forms of cross-nozzle interaction that can promote or prevent transition are identified. Furthermore, the velocity measurements indicated that blowoff or reattachment of the first nozzle during a multinozzle transition causes significant changes to the flow fields of the other nozzles. It is proposed that a single-nozzle transition redistributes the flow to the other nozzles in a manner that promotes their transition.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Shanbhogue, S. , Hussain, S. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2009, “Lean Blowoff of Bluff Body Stabilized Flames: Scaling and Dynamic,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 35(1), pp. 98–120. [CrossRef]
Nair, S. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2007, “Near-Blowoff Dynamics of a Bluff-Body Stabilized Flame,” J. Propul. Power, 23(2), pp. 421–427. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Q. , Shanbhogue, S. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2009, “Dynamics of Premixed H2 CH4 Flames Under Near Blowoff Conditions,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59981.
Chaudhuri, S. , Kostka, S. , Renfro, M. , and Cetegen, B. , 2010, “Blowoff Dynamics of Bluff Body Stabilized Turbulent Premixed Flames,” Combust. Flame, 157(4), pp. 790–802. [CrossRef]
Stöhr, M. , Boxx, I. , Carter, C. , and Meier, W. , 2016, “Dynamics of Lean Blowout of a Swirl-Stabilized Flame in a Gas Turbine Model Combustor,” Combust. Flame, 168(157), pp. 228–239. [CrossRef]
An, Q. , Kwong, W. , Geraedts, B. , and Steinberg, A. , 2016, “Coupled Dynamics of Lift-Off and Precessing Vortex Core Formation in Swirl Flames,” Combust. Flame, 168, pp. 228–239. [CrossRef]
Dawson, J. , Gordon, R. , Kariuki, J. , Mastorakos, E. , Masri, A. , and Juddoo, M. , 2011, “Visualization of Blow-Off Events in Bluff-Body Stabilized Turbulent Premixed Flames,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 33(1), pp. 1559–1566.
Kariuki, J. , Dawson, J. , and Mastorakos, E. , 2012, “Measurements in Turbulent Premixed Bluff Body Flames Close to Blow-Off,” Combust. Flames, 159(8), pp. 2589–2607. [CrossRef]
Fanaca, D. , Alemela, P. , Hirsch, C. , and Sattelmayer, T. , 2010, “Comparison of the Flow Field of a Swirl Stabilized Premixed Burner in an Annular and a Single Burner Combustion Chamber,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 132(7), p. 071502. [CrossRef]
Kao, T.-H. , Tambe, S. , and Jeng, S.-M. , 2014, “Aerodynamics Study of a Linearly-Arranged 5-Swirler Array,” ASME Paper No. GT2014-25094.
Dolan, B. , Villalva, R. , and Gutmark, E. , 2015, “Optical Measurements of Interacting Lean Direct Injection Fuel Nozzles With Varying Spacing,” ASME Paper No. GT2015-43706.
Dolan, B. , Villalva, R. , Zink, G. , Pack, S. , and Gutmark, E. , 2016, “Effect of Nozzle Spacing on NOx Emissions and Lean Operability,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2016-2105.
Kariuki, J. , Worth, N. , Dawson, J. , and Mastorakos, E. , 2013, “Visualisation of Blow-Off Events of Two Interacting Turbulent Premixed Flames,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2013-0692.
Barre, D. , Esclapez, L. , Cordier, M. , Riber, E. , Cuenot, B. , Staffelbach, G. , Renou, B. , Vandel, A. , Gicquel, L. , and Cabot, G. , 2014, “Flame Propagation in Aeronautical Swirled Multi-Burners: Experimental and Numerical Investigation,” Combust. Flame, 161(9), pp. 2387–2405. [CrossRef]
Machover, E. , and Mastorakos, E. , 2017, “Experimental Investigation on Spark Ignition of Annular Premixed Combustors,” Combust. Flame, 178, pp. 148–157. [CrossRef]
Jella, S. , Bourque, G. , Bergthorson, J. , Kwong, W. , and Steinberg, A. , 2018, “RANS and LES Modelling of a Linear-Array Swirl Burners Using a Flamelelt-Progress Variable Approach,” ASME Paper No. GT2018-75896.
Tuttle, S. , Chaudhuri, S. , Kopp-Vaughan, K. , Jensen, T. , Cetegen, B. , Renfro, M. , and Cohen, J. , 2013, “Lean Blowoff Behavior of Asymmetrically-Fueled Bluff Body-Stabilized Flames,” Combust. Flame, 160(9), pp. 1677–1692. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic drawing of the multinozzle combustor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic drawing of the laser diagnostics setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Representative OH field with all flames stably attached, where the regions used to calculate the normalized OH intensity for each nozzle marked in boxes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mean axial velocity field taken over times as which all flames were stably attached in case 1, V¯y|a., normalized by the bulk velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Normalized OH-PLIF signal intensity (Ωi) for different nozzles in case 1: N1 (top), N2 (middle), and N3 (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Probability of different blowoff/reattachment sequences, viz. OIO, OOI, and IOO: (a) blow-off sequence and (b) reattachment sequence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Sequence of OH-PLIF images showing typical transition from attached to detached flames in case 1: white circle highlights the local extinction events, red circle highlights the flame fragment spanwise propagation events, and orange circle highlights the flame segment upstream propagation events

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Sequence of OH-PLIF images showing typical transition from attached to detached flames after one of the flames lifted: white circle highlights the local extinction events, red circle highlights the flame fragment spanwise propagation events, and orange circle highlights the flame segment upstream propagation events

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Sequence of OH-PLIF images showing typical transition from detached to attached flames: red circle highlights the flame fragment spanwise propagation events and orange circle highlights the flame segment upstream propagation events

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Mean Vy¯ field in different flames attachment states normalized by the bulk velocity in case 1: (a) after N3 was lifted while N1 and N2 still attached t = 681.6–722.8 ms, V¯y|i and (b) after three central flames blowoff V¯y|b s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Representative diagram showing the Gaussian de-trending of any time series data used in this study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Different aspects of the flow field from stably attached to blowoff for case 1: (a) strength of the recirculation zone and (b) penetration height of the swirling jets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Different aspects of the flow field from blowoff to stably attached for case 1: (a) strength of the recirculation zone and (b) penetration height of the swirling jets

Tables

Errata

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