Nonlinear thermoacoustics of ducted premixed flames: The influence of perturbation convection speed

When a premixed flame is placed within a duct, acoustic waves induce velocity perturbations at the flame's base. These travel down the flame, distorting its surface and modulating its heat release. This can induce self-sustained thermoacoustic oscillations. Although the phase speed of these perturbations is often assumed to equal the mean flow speed, experiments conducted in other studies and Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) conducted in this study show that it varies with the acoustic frequency. In this paper, we examine how these variations affect the nonlinear thermoacoustic behaviour. We model the heat release with a nonlinear kinematic G-equation, in which the velocity perturbation is modelled on DNS results. The acoustics are governed by linearised momentum and energy equations. We calculate the flame describing function (FDF) using harmonic forcing at several frequencies and amplitudes. Then we calculate thermoacoustic limit cycles and explain their existence and stability by examining the amplitude-dependence of the gain and phase of the FDF. We find that, when the phase speed equals the mean flow speed, the system has only one stable state. When the phase speed does not equal the mean flow speed, however, the system supports multiple limit cycles because the phase of the FDF changes significantly with oscillation amplitude. This shows that the phase speed of velocity perturbations has a strong influence on the nonlinear thermoacoustic behaviour of ducted premixed flames. © 2013 The Combustion Institute.

Comparison of acoustic velocity perturbation measurements using PIV vs. two-microphone technique

Understanding combustion instabilities requires accurate measurements of the acoustic velocity perturbation into injectors. This is often accomplished via the use of the two microphone technique, as this only requires two pressure transducers. However, measurements of the actual velocities emerging from the injectors are not often taken, leaving questions regarding the assumptions about the acoustic velocity. A comparison of velocity measured at downstream of the injector with that of two-microphone technique can show the accuracy and limitations of two-microphone technique. In this paper, velocity measurements are taken using both particle image velocimetry (PIV) and the two-microphone technique in a high pressure facility designed for aeroengine injector measurements. The flow is excited using an area modulation device installed on the choked end of the combustion chamber, with PIV measurements enabled by optical access downstream of the injector through a quartz tube and windows. Acoustic velocity perturbations at the injector are determined by considering the Fourier transformed pressure fluctuations for two microphones installed at a known distance upstream of the injector. PIV measurements are realized by seeding the air flow with micrometric water particles under 2.5 bar pressure at ambient temperature. Phase locked velocity fields are realized by synchronizing the acquisition of PIV images with the revolution of the acoustic modulator using the pressure signal measured at the face of injector. The mean velocity fluctuation is calculated as the difference between maximum and minimum velocities, normalized by the mean velocity of the unforced case. Those values are compared with the peak-to-peak velocity fluctuation amplitude calculated by the two-microphone technique. Although the ranges of velocity fluctuations for both techniques are similar, the variation of fluctuation with forcing frequencies diverges significantly with frequency. The differences can be attributed to several limitations associated with of both techniques, such as the quality of the signal, the signal/noise ratio, the accuracy of PIV measurements and the assumption of isentropic flow of the particle velocity from the plenum through the injector. We conclude that two-microphone methods can be used as a reference value for the velocity fluctuation in low order applications such as flame transfer functions, but not for drawing conclusions regarding the absolute velocity fluctuations in the injector. Copyright © 2013 by ASME.