Mixing in Coaxial Jets Using Synthetic Jet Actuators
description
Transcript of Mixing in Coaxial Jets Using Synthetic Jet Actuators
Georgia Tech
Mixing in Coaxial Jets Using Synthetic Jet Actuators
Brian RitchieDilip R. Mujumdar
Jerry Seitzman
Supported by ARO-MURI
38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting
Georgia Tech
Overview
• Goal– Control of (scalar) mixing rate
• Fuel-air mixing
• Requirements– Large-scales, stirring/entrainment– Small-scales, leads to molecular mixing
• Approach– Synthetic jets
Georgia Tech
Synthetic Jets
• Amplitude and frequency control– High frequency, small scales– Low frequency amplitude
modulation, large scales
• Need no external fluid
Georgia Tech
Mixture Fraction Measurements
• Measurement technique: acetone PLIF• Acetone PLIF data corrected for
– laser sheet energy distribution– laser energy absorption– acetone seeding variation with time– shot-to-shot laser energy
• Mixture fraction ( f = mannulus fluid/mtotal )– f = 1 at annulus exit
Georgia Tech
Facility
camera
x
Acetone-seeded air
r
3” UV laser sheet
Secondary laser sheet
Small acetone jet
Metalpost
Di = 1.59 cm
Do = 2.54 cm
Georgia Tech
Previous Results - Single Jet
air jet fluid
0 on 9 on Pulsing (modulated)
2.54 cm
Georgia Tech
Single Jet Mixing
0
1
2
3
4
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120Average Pixels of Pure Jet Fluid
x/D
0 on9 on9 pulsing
• Less mixing in pulsing case, lower duty cycle
Georgia Tech
Facility Comparison
Ui/Uo = 0.3 0.62 1.4
mixing facility velocity facility
-0.5 0 0.5r / Do
15
0
r / Do r / Do
2
0 -0.5 0 0.5 -0.5 0 0.5
Mea
n V
eloc
ity (m
/s)
RM
S V
eloc
ity (m
/s)
x/Do = 0.25
Georgia Tech
Mixture Fraction Images0 on 9 on
5
x/Do
0
0 Probability (%) 10 ... 100
Georgia Tech
PDF Imagesf
1
0
• Slices acquired every x/Do= 0.25
• Sets of 300 x 5 rows
-0.5 0 0.5
r/Do
0 Probability (%) 10 ... 100
Georgia Tech
PDF: x/Do = 0.25
0 Probability (%) 10 ... 100
-1 0 1r/Do
1
0f
1
0
0 on
9 on
Georgia Tech
PDF: x/Do = 1.5
0 Probability (%) 10 ... 100
-1 0 1r/Do
1
0f
1
0
0 on
9 on
Georgia Tech
PDF: x/Do = 2.5
0 on
9 on
0 Probability (%) 10 ... 100
-1 0 1r/Do
1
0f
1
0
Georgia Tech
Amplitude Modulation (Pulsing)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
0 1 2 3 x/Do
f = 0 1
Georgia Tech
Comparison to Velocity
0 U/Um 1 -0.25 V/Um 0.25 0 f 1
80
120
160
200
Georgia Tech
PDF: Pulsing
x/Do
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0.25
= 40 = 80
0 Probability (%) 10
Georgia Tech
Profiles: x/Do = 0.25
f '
f
r/Do
0 on
9 on
9 pulsing
Georgia Tech
Profiles: x/Do = 2
f '
f
r/Do
0 on
9 on
9 pulsing
Georgia Tech
Integrated Data
dr2I
f
• Integrate across slices to get single data point at each downstream location
• Assume axisymmetric on average
Georgia Tech
Integrated Acetone
Georgia Tech
Integrated Pure Acetone
Georgia Tech
Conclusions
• Velocity and mixing data acquired for similar conditions
• Direct small-scale and large-scale excitation• Control by
– Changing amplitude– Turning modulation on/off– Spatial distribution of actuators (causes
asymmetry seen in current data)
Georgia Tech
Conclusions (cont.)• Near-field mixing enhancement
– Initially on outer mixing layer– Inner mixing layer more enhanced downstream
• Large-scale structures survive– Enhanced entrainment outweighs duty cycle loss for
coaxial jets (unlike single jet case)– Most effective on outer mixing layer
• Other velocity ratios– 0.3 case similar to 0.62; 1.4 case less response