Effects of oxygen concentration of oxidizer flow on laminar diffusion flame established over liquid fuel beds at microgravity

Hui Ying WANG; Némo DECAMPS; Hui Ying WANG; Némo DECAMPS

doi:10.3934/mina.2024007

Metascience in Aerospace

2024, Volume 1, Issue 2: 159-184. doi: 10.3934/mina.2024007

Previous Article Next Article

Theory article

Effects of oxygen concentration of oxidizer flow on laminar diffusion flame established over liquid fuel beds at microgravity

Hui Ying WANG ^,,
Némo DECAMPS

Institut Pprime (CNRS-UPR 3346, ENSMA, Poitiers University), Département Fluide-Thermique-Combustion, ENSMA - BP 40109, Téléport 2, 1 av Clément ADER, 86961 Futuroscope Chasseneuil Cedex, France

Received: 27 November 2023 Revised: 19 February 2024 Accepted: 28 February 2024 Published: 12 March 2024

The effects of oxygen concentration in oxidizer flow with a low speed of 0.1–0.3 m/s on a co-current flame spread over a thin liquid fuel bed at microgravity is numerically studied. The soot model is based on the Laminar Smoke Point (LSP) concept, which was used to reproduce the behaviour of a non-premixed, heavily sooting laminar flame. The results including flame patterns, soot emissions, temperature, and liquid burning rate are examined. Pyrolysis rate of liquid fuel significantly increases by increasing forced flow velocity and oxygen concentration, favouring flame length and soot formation. The flame behaviour at very low strain rates depends on both radiative heat loss and combustion efficiency, which are affected by oxygen concentration. The reactive boundary layer is significantly lifted along the pyrolysis surface due to lack of oxygen in the growing boundary layer, and the 3D effects are of importance due to thermal expansion. The ratio between the flame stand-off distance and the boundary layer thickness converges toward unity, however, the soot resides within the boundary layer. Compared to a heptane flame, a dodecane flame has lower pyrolysis rate and more effective oxygen transport ensures intensive combustion. A high oxidizer flow velocity results in a longer flame, and a reduction in flame standoff distance from the flat plate.
- flame length,
- radiation loss,
- soot formation,
- flame stand-off,
- microgravity
Citation: Hui Ying WANG, Némo DECAMPS. Effects of oxygen concentration of oxidizer flow on laminar diffusion flame established over liquid fuel beds at microgravity[J]. Metascience in Aerospace, 2024, 1(2): 159-184. doi: 10.3934/mina.2024007

Related Papers:

Abstract

The effects of oxygen concentration in oxidizer flow with a low speed of 0.1–0.3 m/s on a co-current flame spread over a thin liquid fuel bed at microgravity is numerically studied. The soot model is based on the Laminar Smoke Point (LSP) concept, which was used to reproduce the behaviour of a non-premixed, heavily sooting laminar flame. The results including flame patterns, soot emissions, temperature, and liquid burning rate are examined. Pyrolysis rate of liquid fuel significantly increases by increasing forced flow velocity and oxygen concentration, favouring flame length and soot formation. The flame behaviour at very low strain rates depends on both radiative heat loss and combustion efficiency, which are affected by oxygen concentration. The reactive boundary layer is significantly lifted along the pyrolysis surface due to lack of oxygen in the growing boundary layer, and the 3D effects are of importance due to thermal expansion. The ratio between the flame stand-off distance and the boundary layer thickness converges toward unity, however, the soot resides within the boundary layer. Compared to a heptane flame, a dodecane flame has lower pyrolysis rate and more effective oxygen transport ensures intensive combustion. A high oxidizer flow velocity results in a longer flame, and a reduction in flame standoff distance from the flat plate.

References

[1]	Torero JL, Bonneau L, Most JM, et al. (1994) The effect of gravity on a laminar diffusion flame established over a horizontal plate, 25th Symposium (international) on Combustion (Pittsburgh: The Combustion Institute), 25: 1701–1709. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0082-0784(06)80818-0
[2]	Paul D Ronney (1998) Understanding combustion processes through microgravity research, 27^th Symposium (international) on Combustion (Pittsburgh: The Combustion Institute), 27: 2485–2493. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0082-0784(98)80101-X
[3]	Olson SL, T'ien JS (2000) Buoyant low-stretch diffusion flames beneath cylindrical PMMA samples. Combust Flame 121: 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(99)00161-3 doi: 10.1016/S0010-2180(99)00161-3
[4]	Legros G, Joulain P, Vantelon JP, et al. (2006) Soot volume fraction measurements in a three dimensional laminar diffusion flame established in microgravity. Combust Sci Technol 178: 813–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102200500271344 doi: 10.1080/00102200500271344
[5]	Fuentes A, Legros G, Claverie A, et al. (2007) Influence of the oxidizer velocities on the sooting behaviour of non-buoyant laminar diffusion flame. P Combust Inst 31: 2685–2692.
[6]	Santa KJ, Chao BH, et al. (2007) Radiative extinction of gaseous spherical diffusion flames in microgravity. Combust Flame 151: 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2007.08.009 doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2007.08.009
[7]	Konsur B, Megaridis CM, Griffin DW, et al. (1999) Soot aerosol properties in laminar soot-emitting microgravity nonpremixed flames. Combust Flame 118: 509–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(99)00021-8 doi: 10.1016/S0010-2180(99)00021-8
[8]	Tyurenkova VV, Smirnova MN (2023) Analytical approach to flame propagation over thermally destructing structured material problem. // Acta Astronautica, Pergamon Press Ltd. (United Kingdom), 213: 438–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.09.020
[9]	Tyurenkova VV, Stamov LI (2019) Flame propagation in weightlessness above the burning surface of material. Acta Astronaut 159: 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.03.053 doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.03.053
[10]	Rouvreau S, Torero JL, Joulain P (2005) Numerical evaluation of boundary layer assumptions for laminar diffusion flames in micro gravity. Combust Theor Model 9: 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830500098381 doi: 10.1080/13647830500098381
[11]	Fernandez-Pello AC (1979) Flame spread in a forward forced flow. Combust Flame 36: 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(79)90046-4 doi: 10.1016/0010-2180(79)90046-4
[12]	Fernandez-Pello AC, Mao CP (1981) A unified analysis of concurrent modes of flame spread. Combust Sci Technol 26: 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102208108946954 doi: 10.1080/00102208108946954
[13]	Ferkul PV, Y'ien JS (1994) A model of low-speed concurrent flow spread over a thin fuel. Combust Sci Technol 99: 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102209408935440 doi: 10.1080/00102209408935440
[14]	Li C, Liao YTT, James S, et al. (2019) Transient flame growth and spread processes over a large solid fabric in concurrent low-speed flows in microgravity – Model versus experiment. Proc Combust Inst 37: 4163–4171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.05.168 doi: 10.1016/j.proci.2018.05.168
[15]	Urban DL, Ferkul P, Olson S, et al. (2019) Flame spread: Effects of microgravity and scale. Combust Flame 199: 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.10.012 doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.10.012
[16]	Tseng YT, T'ien JS (2010) Limiting length steady spread and nongrowing flames in concurrent flow over solids. J Heat Transfer 132: 091201. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001645 doi: 10.1115/1.4001645
[17]	Zhao X, Liao YTT, Johnston MC, et al. (2017) Concurrent flame growth, spread, and quenching over composite fabric samples in low speed purely forced flow in microgravity. Proc Combust Inst 36: 2971–2978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2016.06.028 doi: 10.1016/j.proci.2016.06.028
[18]	Mell WE, Kashiwagi T (2000) Effects of finite sample width on transition and flame spread in microgravity. Proc Combust Inst 28: 2785–2792. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0082-0784(00)80700-6 doi: 10.1016/S0082-0784(00)80700-6
[19]	Guibaud A, Consalvi JL, Orlac'h JM, et al. (2020) Soot production and radiative heat transfer in opposed flame spread over a polyethylene insulated wire in microgravity. Fire Technol 56: 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00850-8 doi: 10.1007/s10694-019-00850-8
[20]	Wen Z, Yun S, Thomson MJ, et al. (2003) Modeling soot formation in turbulent kerosene/air jet diffusion flames. Combust Flame 135: 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(03)00179-2 doi: 10.1016/S0010-2180(03)00179-2
[21]	Lui F, Guo HS, Gregory J, et al. (2002) Effects of gas and soot radiation on soot formation in a coflow laminar ethylene diffusion flame. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transf 73: 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4073(01)00205-9 doi: 10.1016/S0022-4073(01)00205-9
[22]	Leung KM, Lindstedt RP, Jones WP (1991) A simplified reaction mechanism for soot formation in nonpremixed flames. Combust Flame 87: 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4073(01)00205-9 doi: 10.1016/S0022-4073(01)00205-9
[23]	Vovelle C, Delfan JL, Reuillon M (1994) Formation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Decane and Kerosene Flames at Reduced Pressure. In: Bockhorn, H. (eds) Soot Formation in Combustion. Springer Series in Chemical Physics, 59. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85167-4_4
[24]	Anderson H, McEnally CS, Pfefferle LD (2000) Experimental study of naphthalene formation pathways in non-premixed methane flames poped with alkylbenzenes, 28th Symposium (international) on Combustion (Pittsburgh: The Combustion Institute), 2577–2585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0082-0784(00)80675-X
[25]	Hall RJ, Smooke MD, Colket MD (1997) Physical and Chemical Aspects of Combustion, A Tribute to Irvine Glassman, F.L Dryer and R.F Sawyer (Ed.) Gordon & Breach, 189.
[26]	Beji T, Zhang JP, Delichatsios M (2008) Delichatsios, Determination of soot formation rate from laminar smoke point measurements. Combust Sci Technol 180: 927940. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102200801894398 doi: 10.1080/00102200801894398
[27]	Mcgrattan K, Mcdermott R, Hostikka S, et al. (2018) Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 6), User's guide, NIST Special Publication.
[28]	Andersen J, Rasmussen CL, Giselsson T, et al. (2009) Global combustion mechanisms for use in CFD modeling under oxy-fuel conditions. Energ Fuel 23: 1379–1389. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef8003619 doi: 10.1021/ef8003619
[29]	Murty KA (1975) Introduction to Combustion Phenomena, New York: Gordon, ISBN 0–6.
[30]	Wang HY, Merino JLF, Dagaut P (2011) Effects of soot formation on shape of a nonpremixed laminar flame established in a shear boundary layer in microgravity. J Phys 327: 012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/327/1/012038 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/327/1/012038
[31]	Emmons HW (1956) The film combustion of liquid fuel. Z Angew Math Mech 36: 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19560360105 doi: 10.1002/zamm.19560360105
[32]	Schlichting H (1979) Boundary layer theory, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill.
[33]	Fujita O, Ito K, Ito H, et al. (1997) Effect of thermophoretic force on soot agglomeration process in diffusion flame under microgravity, 4^th NASA International Microgravity Combustion Workshop, 217–222.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)