Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 290298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/etfs

Inuence of ow eld scaling on ashback of swirl ames

G. Blesinger *, R. Koch, H.-J. Bauer
Institut fr Thermische Strmungsmaschinen, Universitt Karlsruhe, Kaiserstrasse 12, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
In this paper, the effect of geometrical scaling on the onset of ashback into a cylindrical premixing zone of a swirl ame is investigated. We discriminate two types of ashback. In the rst type of ashback the ame propagates upstream inside an already present axial recirculation zone. This ashback is caused by turbulent burning along the vortex axis (TBVA1) and is controlled by ame extinction inside the recirculation zone. The second type of ashback is caused by combustion induced vortex breakdown (CIVB2). This type of ashback is characterised by the aerodynamic inuence of the combustion heat release that leads to propagation of the axial recirculation zone and the ame in upstream direction. To study the effects of geometrical scaling on the ow elds and the two types of ashback, the operation of two geometrically scaled burners are compared at equal Reynolds number. By this method it is possible to observe the ashback phenomena in similar swirl ow elds but with different turbulent scales affecting the combustion process. To check ow eld similarity and to indentify the ashback type, the non-reacting and reacting ow elds have been examined by planar particle imaging velocimetry and simultaneous recording of the ame luminescence. It is shown that geometrical scaling of the burner shifts the equivalence ratio at which ashback occurs and that this shift is different for the two types of ashback. Consistency and inconsistency with known scaling and stability criterions is discussed. Analysing the uid dynamics and turbulent combustion gives a rst explanation of why CIVB and TBVA are affected differently by geometrical scaling at constant Reynolds number which is in good agreement with the experimental observations. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 25 October 2009 Accepted 25 October 2009

Keywords: Flashback Scaling Vortex breakdown Premixed combustion Swirl ow

1. Introduction Vortex breakdown is the major ow pattern which ensures aerodynamic stabilisation of swirl ames. In Fig. 1, the change in the radial proles of axial velocity, circumferential velocity and static pressure during the vortex breakdown transition are compared for a Rankine vortex. The vortex breakdown transition is characterised by the displacement of axial momentum in radial direction and the formation of a stagnation point and a subsequent axial recirculation zone which serves to stabilise the combustion. In the past, the vortex breakdown has been issue of intensive research [14], because the prediction of this transition is relevant for many practical swirl ows. In gas turbine combustion systems the evolution of a vortex breakdown is forced at the entry of the combustion chamber by an increase of the cross section area along the ow path. To reduce NOx emissions by enhanced premixing of fuel and air, new burner

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 721 6063242; fax: +49 721 6082767. E-mail address: georg.blesinger@its.uni-karlsruhe.de (G. Blesinger). 1 TBVA: turbulent burning on the vortex axis. 2 CIVB: combustion induced vortex breakdown. 0894-1777/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.expthermusci.2009.10.026

concepts introduce a mixing zone downstream of the point of swirl generation and fuel injection and upstream of the combustion chamber. A danger in the application of this concept is the ame propagation into the mixing zone [5,6]. In the presented work, two types of axial ashback into a mixing tube are studied. During both types the vortex breakdown occurs inside this premixing tube upstream of the combustion chamber. The inuence of geometry scaling on the occurrence of such ashback is investigated for two reasons. First, it is studied how the stability margins of a combustor regarding ashback are affected by geometrical scaling of the system. Is it checked whether conventional scaling methods like constant velocity or constant residence time scaling can be applied. It is shown that the scaling law depends on the ashback type and that the scaling law may even change for one type of ashback during scaling. Secondly, the mechanisms that cause the observed inuence of scaling on the investigated types of ashback are discussed. Focus is put on the role of the turbulent burning velocity for each ashback type and the inuence of the turbulent time and length scales. Studying the geometrical scaling of combustion systems at constant Reynolds number (Re) is unusual, because in practice Re is not considered to be an important similarity parameter for the reacting ow [1618]. We still chose the concept for two reasons. First, for the investigated ow the onset of vortex breakdown is

G. Blesinger et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 290298

291

Nomenclature A a c D Da Ka l p R r Re S T t Tu u ~ u v  W w z surface, exponent of scaling factor (m2,) thermal diffusivity (m2/s) velocity measured by CTA (m/s) diameter (m) Damkhler number () Karlovitz number () characteristic length scale (m) pressure (N/m2) mixing tube radius (m) radial coordinate (m) Reynolds number () burning velocity (m/s) temperature (K) time (s) turbulence intensity () representative velocity (m/s) velocity vector (m/s) circumferential velocity (m/s) bulk velocity (m/s) axial velocity (m/s) axial coordinate (m) scaling factor () ame front thickness (m)

U
/

g m q s

equivalence ratio () azimuthal coordinate (rad) Kolmogorov length scale (m) kinematic viscosity (m2/s) density (kg/m3) time scale, stress tensor (s, N/m2)

a
d

Subscripts 0 unstretched, undistorted 1 burner 1 (large scale) 2 burner 2 (small scale) b burned c chemical crit critical value f ame k Kolmogorov l laminar mean time averaged res residence rms root mean square value t turbulent u unburned

inuenced by viscous dissipation of momentum. The axial position of the recirculation zone changes with Re, which in turn affects the occurrence of ashback. Thus, in the present study ashback can only be compared at equal Re. Second, geometrical scaling at constant Re allows to control the properties of turbulence that in turn affect the turbulent burning velocity. By this approach the turbulent stretch is varied while the turbulent transport is kept constant. 2. Experimental setup For the present study an unscaled and a geometrically downscaled swirl burner have been pused. Burner 2 is scaled down by the scaling factor a 0:5 as compared to burner 1 (D1 = 40 mm; D2 = 28 mm). The burner design, developed by Burmberger et al. [7], consists of a swirl generator extended by a tube of diameter D that represents a generic mixing section. As shown in Fig. 2, the swirl generator is mounted inside a plenum and is supplied with a uniform ow of perfectly premixed fuelair mixture at ambient temperature and pressure. The ow through the swirl generator is split up into a purely axial ow (a) entering through an exchangeable centre orice and three perforated sheets and a

purely tangential ow (b) entering through eight tangential slits that may be partly blocked. Both ows are merged inside a nozzle upstream the mixing tube. By changing the orice diameter and the open slit length, the level of swirl in the mixing tube can be varied. The experiments have been carried out with three different burner congurations. A low swirl (LS) conguration for the study of ashback caused by CIVB, a high swirl (HS) conguration for the study of ashback caused by TBVA and a medium swirl (MS) conguration to examine the scaling of the isothermal ow. In the experiments natural gas (97% CH4, 0.9% C2H6, 0.3% C3H8) has been used as fuel. The Reynolds number based on bulk ow  inside the mixing tube and the mixing tube diameter velocity W D have ranged from 10,000 to 80,000 corresponding to an air mass ow of 644 g/s for burner 1 and 430 g/s for burner 2. The ame of the swirl burner has been operated atmospherically. The turbulent ow conditions in the exit plane of the mixing tube have been examined by a constant temperature anemometer (CTA). Planar velocity elds inside the glass mixing tube have been captured by PIV in the r, z-plane at a frame rate of 5 Hz. In the reacting case the ame position has been captured simultaneously by ame luminescence recordings with an intensied CCD camera.

Fig. 1. Proles of axial velocity (a), azimutal velocity (b) and static pressure (c) taken in radial direction upstream (continuous lines) and downstream (dashed lines) of vortex breakdown (VB).

292

G. Blesinger et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 290298

Fig. 2. Cross section of the swirl burner (burner 2) mounted in plenum.

3. Discrimination of two types of ashback: CIVB versus TBVA Flashback occurs if the equivalence ratio U exceeds a certain value Ucrit which is called the stability limit or ashback limit. Depending on the swirl level of the ow, two types of ashback into the premixing zone with different ashback limits can be observed. TBVA (Fig. 3b and c): For high swirl levels the vortex breakdown of the non-reacting ow is located far upstream of the mixing tube exit. In the reacting case the ashback is then caused by turbulent burning in the axial recirculation zone (RZ) that extends upstream along the vortex axis into the mixing tube. In Fig. 3, the axial position of the vortex breakdown is marked by the stagnation point (SP). For U < Ucrit this type of ashback is prevented by turbulent ame quenching inside the part of the recirculation zone that extends into the mixing tube (Fig. 3c). For U P Ucrit the combustion is sufciently strong to compensate for the heat losses and to stabilise inside the recirculation zone upstream of the mixing tube exit (Fig. 3b). Flow conditions for TBVA prevail in the used high swirl (HS) burner conguration. CIVB (Fig. 3a and b): The CIVB ashback phenomenon is observed with the LS conguration of the burners. At low swirl levels the vortex breakdown of the non-reacting ow is located downstream of the mixing tube exit. In the initial ow eld upstream ame propagation is prevented by high axial uid velocities. In this

case, ow stagnation inside the mixing section is a precondition for any upstream ame propagation. The axial position of the vortex breakdown is very sensitive to ow conditions. Thus the aerodynamic impact of the combustion heat release may induce axial ow stagnation by triggering an unwanted movement of the vortex breakdown and the attached reaction zone upstream into the premixing duct. This aerodynamic combustion effect is called combustion induced vortex breakdown (CIVB). As long as U < Ucrit the inuence of the combustion heat release on the aerodynamics of the ow is not sufcient to induce an upstream propagation of the vortex breakdown. The recirculation zone and the ame are located downstream of the mixing tube exit (Fig. 3a). As soon as U exceeds the stability limit, CIVB causes the recirculation zone and the ame to propagate upstream into the straight cylindrical premixing section (ashback caused by CIVB) (Fig. 3b). Similarly to TBVA, turbulent ame quenching inside the recirculation zone is also important for CIVB and may stop ame propagation. As shown in Fig. 4, the aerodynamic mechanisms of both types of ashback can be observed on the basis of simultaneous recordings of the axial velocity eld (left: planar PIV) and the ame position (right: ame luminescence). U and Re are set to values at the onset of ashback to observe the transient interaction of ow eld and combustion. Under these conditions the ame oscillates upstream and downstream in time. The white dashed line marks the walls and the exit of the mixing tube.

Fig. 3. Illustration of ame (luminescence), mixing tube (white line) and recirculation zone (white, dashed line) for different operation conditions: (a) stable ame for low swirl level, (b) ame after ashback (similar for ashback caused by CIVB and ashback caused by TBVA) and (c) stable ame for high swirl level.

G. Blesinger et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 290298

293

Fig. 4. Axial velocity eld (2D) and ame luminescence during ashback due to CIVB (LS, Re = 28,000, U = 0.66) and TBVA (HS, Re = 28,000, U = 0.63).

In the case of ashback caused by CIVB the ow eld is strongly altered by the ame. During the upstream ame propagation, the ame front (FF) is attached to the vortex breakdown position (marked by the stagnation point (SP) in Fig. 4). The small distance between stagnation point and ame tip has already been observed by Konle and Sattelmayer [11]. In the case of ashback caused by TBVA the ame propagates into an already established recirculation zone. No change of the ow eld is necessary. At the onset of ashback caused by TBVA the combustion inside the recirculation zone is close to extinction. This becomes obvious in Fig. 4 considering the ame entering and leaving the turbulent recirculation zone. The occurrence of the two types of ashback is governed by the following conditions:  The single necessary condition for the occurrence of ashback caused by turbulent burning on the vortex axis (TBVA) is that the ame does not extinguish inside the part of the recirculation zone that extends into the premixing tube.  The occurrence of ashback caused by combustion induced vortex breakdown (CIVB) has two necessary conditions. First, the aerodynamic inuence of the combustion heat release on the ow must be sufcient to cause the vortex breakdown to propagate upstream into the premixing tube [810]. Second, like in the case of TBVA the ame must not extinguish inside the part of the recirculation zone upstream the mixing tube exit [6]. The two necessary conditions for ashback caused by CIVB are very different. It is shown in Section 6 that the rst condition depends on the heat release rate, and thus on the turbulent burning velocity. In contrast, the second condition depends on the extinction limit at which the turbulent burning velocity tends to zero. Consequently, the fulllment of each of the two necessary conditions is governed by different combustion regimes. To avoid the ashback caused by CIVB, it must rst be claried which of the two necessary conditions is determining its occurrence. Secondly, it must be studied how geometrical scaling affects the combustion

processes that are relevant for each of the two conditions. Both is done in Section 5 by comparing the stability limits of ashback caused by CIVB with the stability limits of ashback caused by TBVA.

4. Effect of scaling on the non-reacting ow eld Prior to the scaling analysis of the reacting ow elds, it is necessary to evaluate the inuence of scaling on the non-reacting ow. According to theory, it is expected that the ow elds of the scaled geometries are similar for equal Reynolds numbers. The effect of geometrical scaling on the averaged and the turbulent ow variables (unscaled: 1; scaled: 2) is summarised in Table 1 [12]. The validity of the theoretical assumption is checked by comparing turbulent ow variables inside the non-reacting, turbulent ow elds of the geometrically scaled burners. The velocity measurements for the three burner congurations (LS, MS, HS) have been carried out in the r, z-plane of the mixing tube. For the HS burner conguration CTA measurements of the absolute velocity c at the mixing tube exit (z = 0) are shown in Fig. 5. As expected from theory Tu and the normalised values of cmean and crms are similar for the unscaled (1) and scaled (2) geometry. In Fig. 6, instantaneous and averaged axial velocity elds of the non-reacting ow in the mixing tube are compared for a MS conguration of burner 1. In this case, the vortex breakdown is located inside a uniform ow channel section and its position is very sensitive to inow conditions. Therefore, the turbulent inow uctuations lead to strong uctuations of vortex breakdown position over time. Such ow conditions are most suitable for the examination of the ow eld scaling and the MS conguration of the burner was used besides of the LS conguration for this purpose. For studying the vortex breakdown position in the transient ow, it is important to interpret the time averaged velocity elds correctly. In the instantaneous ow elds in Fig. 6, the time averaged axial position of the stagnation point is marked by the black, dashed line. It coincides with the axial position in the averaged ow eld where the

294

G. Blesinger et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 290298

Table 1 Scaling of the ow variables (q = const, T = const). Name Geometry scaling factor Reynolds number Velocity Velocity gradient Relationship Name Turb. length scale Turb. velocity scales Turb. Reynolds number Turb. intensity Relationship

a = l2/l1
Re1 = u1,2l1,2/m = Re2

ag1 g2 ; alt;1 lt;2 a1~ uk=t;2 uk=t ;1 ~

Ret,1 = Ret,2 Tu1 = urms,1,2/umean,1,2 = Tu2

a1~ u2 u1 ~ ~~ ~~ a2 r u1 r u2

tex breakdown is located inside the cylindrical tube. In the MS ow eld, the axial position of the vortex breakdown for burner 1 is located 0.5 D further upstream compared to the axial position of the vortex breakdown for burner 2. Considering the sensitivity of the vortex breakdown position inside the mixing tube to inow conditions (compare Fig. 6), the observed inconsistency between the MS ow elds of both burners is small. Comparing the measured ow variables of the scaled and unscaled burner for the LS and the HS conguration, the similarity is highly satisfactory. 5. Scaling of ashback limits Based on the similarity of non-reacting ows of the two burners it is possible to investigate the inuence of geometry scaling on the reacting ow elds. In the experiments stability limits Ucrit have been recorded for scaled and unscaled burner as a function of Re. Per denition, increasing U starting from stable conditions, instability was reached as soon as the ame was able to propagate more than 1 D upstream into the mixing tube. In the stability chart (Fig. 8) the effect of scaling on Ucrit is compared for the ashback caused by CIVB (LS burner conguration) and the ashback caused by TBVA (HS burner conguration) as a function of Re. For all cases the sets of data points (Re, Ucrit) show an almost linear rise of Ucrit with Re. Thick lines mark the stability limit for the larger burner 1, thin lines mark this limit for the smaller burner 2. With the stability limits of CIVB and TBVA shown in Fig. 8, the following conclusions can be drawn:  For burner 1, the ashback limit of TBVA is lower than for CIVB. The critical equivalence ratio of the ashback caused by TBVA is the value of equivalence ratio for which the ame is able to propagate upstream inside a readily present recirculation zone. In consequence, the difference in the stability limits of ashback

Fig. 5. Scaling of turbulent velocity uctuations, HS, burner 1 versus 2 (Re = 43,700).

local maximum of the axial velocity turns into a local minimum. This point was chosen as reference to compare the axial position of the vortex breakdown (VB) in different ow elds and is indicated by a black, dashed line and splitting arrows. The ow eld comparison of the large scale burner 1 and small scale burner 2 is presented in Fig. 7 for the low swirl (LS) and for the medium swirl (MS) burner conguration at Re = 14,500. For comparing the averaged, axial velocity elds in the symmetry plane of the mixing tube, the plots are matched in size and norma . In the ow elds of the LS conguralised by the bulk velocity W tion of both burners (Fig. 7a) the vortex breakdown is located downstream of the mixing tube exit at identical positions. In the MS case (Fig. 7b) possible inconsistencies between the ow elds of burners 1 and 2 are expected to be pronounced because the vor-

Fig. 6. Axial velocities in the mixing tube down stream of swirler (MS burner 1, Re = 14,500).

G. Blesinger et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 290298

295

Fig. 7. Comparison of vortex breakdown positions in time averaged, axial velocity elds (Re = 14,500), (a) low swirl conguration burners 1 and 2 and (b) medium swirl conguration burners 1 and 2.

in practice to scale combustion systems. In those scaling methods, the equivalence ratio is usually unchanged while Re is changed with geometry. One method is scaling at constant velocity. For this method, the ratio of all mass ows and the bulk ow velocity  are kept constant. A second method is scaling at constant resW idence time for which the mass ow ratios and the ow residence  are kept constant [17]. To check if these scaling time sres D=W criteria can be applied to the observed stability limits, the critical laminar burning velocity Sl,crit for both types of ashback is plotted  and 1/sres in Figs. 9 and 10. The critical laminar burning versus W velocity is calculated based on the measured values of Ucrit.  For ashback caused by CIVB the relation between Sl,crit and W is similar for burners 1 and 2 (Fig. 9). Thus, the scaling of the CIVB ashback limit seems to agree with the practical concept of scaling at constant velocity. Flashback caused by TBVA cannot be predicted by this scaling law. As shown in Fig. 10, the stability limits of this type of ashback correlate much better with the inverse of the ow residence time sres. To predict the shift of the stability limits of this type of ashback the constant residence time scaling law can be used. The application of the discussed scaling methods requires similarity of the ows of scaled and unscaled geometry. For the investigated ow, the axial position of the vortex breakdown changes with Re. Thus, the ows at different Re are not similar and can not be compared. For this reason the shift of stability limits for geometry scaling must be evaluated for similar ow elds (at equal Re). In Fig. 11 the ratio of Sl,crit,2 (downscaled burner 2) and Sl,crit,1 (unscaled burner 1) is plotted for both types of ashback over Re. The ratio of critical laminar burning velocities for ashback caused by CIVB is closed to the value of the inverse geometrical

Fig. 8. Stability chart: stability limits for the occurrence of ashback caused by CIVB and ashback caused by TBVA, burners 1 and 2.

caused by CIVB and TBVA for burner 1 can clearly be attributed to the additional effort of the ame in CIVB to build up a sufcient aerodynamic impact on the ow eld. Flashback caused by CIVB is on this scale governed by the CIVB aerodynamics.  For the downscaled burner 2, the difference in the stability limits of TBVA and CIVB is marginal. In this case, the necessary conditions for ashback caused by TBVA (no ame quenching) and for ashback caused by CIVB (no ame quenching + CIVB aerodynamics) are satised at similar fuel air ratios. It may be expected that for further reduction of burner size ashback caused by CIVB may not be governed by the CIVB aerodynamics any more but by ame quenching.  Reduction of the geometrical length scale at constant Re and similar ow elds requires an increase of fuel air ratio to provoke ashback. This indicates that for reaching similar conditions (occurrence of ashback) in the reacting ow elds of burners 1 and 2, the higher ow velocity must be balanced by a higher burning velocity.  The shift of critical equivalence ratio caused by the change of scale is smaller for ashback caused by CIVB than for ashback caused by TBVA. Both ashback types follow different scaling laws as long as they are governed by different necessary conditions: sufcient CIVB aerodynamics for ashback caused by CIVB compared to no ame extinction for ashback caused by TBVA. In the following, we will discuss whether the observed scaling of the stability limits can be predicted by methods that are used

Fig. 9. Critical laminar burning velocity of CIVB and TBVA for burners 1 and 2 versus the axial bulk ow velocity.

296

G. Blesinger et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 290298

Fig. 10. Critical laminar burning velocity of CIVB and TBVA for burners 1 and 2 versus the inverse ow residence time.

change with scale in order to keep the reacting ows of scaled and unscaled geometry similar. Secondly it is discussed how St is expected to change with the change of the turbulent ow variables during scaling. Two ow elds are considered similar, if in normalised coordinates (for example r/D, z/D and /) one can be obtained from the other by scaling the velocities with a constant factor. Two similar non-reacting ows of different geometrical scale are also similar under the inuence of a ame if the following conditions are fullled. At rst, the density eld imposed by the ame must be identical in both ows. Thus in normalised coordinates the ame in scaled and unscaled ow eld must be at identical positions and the temperatures for unburned and burned uid must be equal in both ows. This requires that the turbulent burning velocity St scales like u by a1. Secondly, the aerodynamic impact of the ame on the ow eld has to be identical. This aerodynamic impact is represented by the additional pressure gradient that is induced by the ame front. Similar reacting ows require that this pressure gradient across the ame front scales according to the terms of the momentum transport equation (Eq. (1)) by a3.

local acceleration

@~ u @ t |{z}

~~ | ~ u r {z u }

momentum flux

pressure gradient

~p r q |{z}

~ st r |{z}
friction

Fig. 11. Ratios of critical laminar burning velocities for both burner scales p (a1 2), comparison for CIVB and TBVA.

 2 =W  1 1:41. Thus, CIVB is indeed governed scaling factor a1 W by the balance of uid and burning velocity. For ashback caused by TBVA Sl,crit,2/Sl,crit,1 is larger than a1 and closer to the ratio of ow times scales a2 = sres,1/sres,2 = 2. Consequently, ashback caused by TBVA is rather governed by the balance of a characteristic chemical time scale3 sc and the ow residence time sres. Thus, the inuence of scaling on the two types of ashback can be summarised:  For any type of ashback the laminar burning velocity must be above a critical value.  For ashback caused by CIVB the critical laminar burning velocity in is roughly proportional to the bulk ow velocity.  For ashback caused by TBVA the critical laminar burning velocity is rather proportional to the inverse of a characteristic ow residence time. After comparing laminar burning velocities, in the following section the coupling and scaling of ow eld and turbulent burning velocity is analysed theoretically. It is explained, why the two types of ashback scale so differently.

To check the latter condition, the time averaged, turbulent ame front is considered. It is assumed that the pressure gradient at each point across the ame front is proportional to the ratio of the pressure difference over the ame front and the turbulent ~ p  Dp =dt . The additional pressure drop ame front thickness: r f across the ame front Dpf is estimated as for an inviscid plug ow combustor with adiabatic boundaries (Eq. (2)).

Dpf qu S2

Tb 1 Tu

Further assuming isotropic turbulence, the turbulent thermal diffusivity at is unaffected by scaling (at  utlt). As the turbulent ame front thickness dt and the turbulent burning velocity St are formally linked by dt  at/St their product is constant dt,1St,1 = dt,2St,2. Under these assumptions Eq. (3) demonstrates that the turbulent burning velocity should scale by a1 to keep the aerodynamic inuence of the ame in scaled and unscaled ow identical.
! a3 ~p r f ;2

~p r f ;1

  T b;1 S t ;1 2 Dpf ;1 dt;2 qu;1 St;1 T u;1 1 St;2 dt;1 S3 ;1 !   t a3 3 T b;2 dt;1 Dpf ;2 S dt;1 qu;2 S2 1 t ; 2 t ;2 T u;2

6. Scaling hypothesis for the reacting ow elds: adaption of the burning velocity So far the experimentally observed relation between laminar burning velocity and ashback for ow eld scaling has been discussed. The direct dependency of the critical laminar burning  or sres is surprising because the velocity on the ow variables W ow is turbulent and the onset of ashback is expected to depend rather directly on the turbulent burning velocity. In this section, rst it is discussed how the turbulent burning velocity St has to
3 Such a characteristic chemical time scale is assumed to be rather proportional to Sl than to S2 l .

Differences in Tb,1 and Tb,2 are neglected in Eq. (3) because their inuence is small compared to differences in St,1 and St,2. According to these simplied considerations it is evident that in the scaled and unscaled ow the ame stabilises at an identical position and exerts an identical aerodynamic force if St can be scaled by a1. As next step it must be claried how St is affected by geometrical scaling. St is depending on the unstretched, laminar burning velocity Sl,0 and on the turbulent ow variables which are affected by scaling as described in Table 1. For illustration, the turbulent combustion conditions of the burners are indicated by the framed grey area inside the Borghi diagram (Fig. 12). The turbulent Damkhler number (Dat) is the ratio of the integral turbulent timescale st to the chemical timescale sc, whereas the turbulent Karlovitz number (Kat), which is an estimate of the intensity of turbulent stretch, is based on the comparison of the Kolmogorov time scale sk of turbulence to sc. In the following, the amelet approach is used to assess the inuence of the turbulence on St. The turbulent ame front is considered to be a wrinkled, laminar ame front. According to this ap-

G. Blesinger et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 290298

297

The experimental ndings support this hypothesis by the fact that the ratio of critical laminar burning velocity for ashback caused by CIVB and TBVA is around 1.4 and 1.8 respectively (Fig. 11). Likewise, it was possible to relate the two types of ashback to the practical scaling techniques of constant velocity and constant residence time. The assumptions made are clearly a strong simplication but seem to capture the main characteristics of the investigated ow eld ame interaction and in particular the effects involved in geometrical scaling of the burners correctly. 7. Summary The ashback limits of two geometrically similar swirl burners p scaled in size by a 0:5 were investigated experimentally. Two modes of ashback were identied: ashback caused by combustion induced vortex breakdown (CIVB) and ashback caused by turbulent burning on the vortex axis (TBVA). In ashback caused by TBVA the recirculation zone extends upstream into the mixing tube and axial ame propagation is limited by turbulent quenching. In ashback caused by CIVB, the combustion induced change of the ow eld is an additional necessary condition for axial ame propagation. Analysing theoretically how combustion is affected by a change of the turbulent time and length scales during ow eld scaling, a hypothesis was derived to predict the effect of geometrical scaling of the burner on the ashback limits. To obtain quasi similarity of the reacting ow elds, the burning velocity must be adapted to the turbulent ow conditions. The adaption of burning velocity as predicted by the hypothesis was found to be in good agreement with the experimental data for Re = 25,00055,000 and for both modes of ashback. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) within the framework of the research program CIVB combustion induced vortex breakdown. References
[1] M.G. Hall, Vortex breakdown, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 4 (1972) 195217. [2] M. Escudier, Vortex breakdown: observations and explanations, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 25 (1988) 189229. [3] O. Lucca-Negro, T. ODoherty, Vortex breakdown: a review, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 27 (2001) 431481. [4] J.J. Keller, W. Egli, R. Althaus, Vortex breakdown as a fundamental element of vortex dynamics, J. Appl. Math. Phys. 39 (1988) 404440. [5] O. Schfer, R. Koch, S. Wittig, Flashback in lean prevaporized premixed combustion: nonswirling turbulent pipe ow study, Trans. ASME 125 (2003) 670676. [6] M. Krner, T. Sattelmayer, J. Fritz, F. Kiesewetter, C. Hirsch, Flame propagation in swirling ows effect of local extinction on the combustion induced vortex breakdown, Comb. Sci. Technol. 179 (2007) 13851416. [7] S. Burmberger, C. Hirsch, T. Sattelmayer, Design rules for the velocity eld of vortex breakdown swirl burners, in: Proc. of the ASME Turbo Expo 2006, paper: GT2006-90495. [8] W.M.T. Ashurst, Flame propagation along a vortex: the baroclinic push, Comb. Sci. Technol. 112 (1996) 175185. [9] F. Kiesewetter, C. Hirsch, J. Fritz, M. Krner; T. Sattelmayer, Two-dimensional ashback simulations in strongly swirling ows, in: Proc. of the ASME Turbo Expo 2003, paper: GT2003-38395. [10] H. Krger, N. Kornev, D. Wendig, E. Hassel, Premixed ame propagation in a free straight vortex, Forschung im Ingenieurwesen 72 (2008) 8592. [11] M. Konle, T. Sattelmayer, Interaction of heat release and vortex breakdown in swirling ames. in: 14th Int. Symp. on Applications of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal, 2008. [12] S.B. Pope, Turbulent Flow, Cambridge University Press, 2000. [13] T. Brutcher, N. Zarzalis, H. Bockhorn, An experimentally based approach for the space-averaged laminar burning velocity used for modeling premixed turbulent combustion, in: Proc. of the 29th Int. Symp. on Comb., 2002, pp. 18251832.

Fig. 12. Effect of scaling and Re on operation regime (framed, grey area) in Borghidiagram.

proach (Eq. (4)), the burning velocity increases due to an increase of the turbulent ame surface At by turbulent wrinkling with respect to the unwrinkled ame surface A0. The stretched, laminar burning velocity of the amelet Sl,f is the ame propagation speed normal to the laminar ame front.

St Sl;f

At A0

At/A0 is assumed to be invariant to scaling because scaling affects turbulent and integral length scales similarly. Likewise, it is assumed that the turbulent ame surface production is also invariant to scaling because the turbulent transport is invariant to scaling (ut,1lt,1 = ut,2lt,2). In contrast, the intensity of turbulent stretch, which affects the stretched, laminar burning velocity of the amelet Sl,f, 1 varies during scaling (Kat  s k ). On the other hand there was found, that for Kat > 0.5 Sl,f becomes increasingly insensitive to turbulent stretch as the turbulent timescales reduce [13,14] and that Sl,f/Sl,0 quickly approaches a constant value of around 0.5 [15]. Thus for 0.5 < Kat < 2, Sl,f/Sl,0 and At/A0 are assumed to be invariant to scaling. As a consequence, St is expected to be directly proportional to Sl,0. The amelet approach is not valid in the whole operation regime, especially not for Da < 1, where combustion approaches the conditions of a perfectly stirred reactor. Such conditions prevail for a ame at the extinction limit inside the recirculation zone where turbulent mixing is most intense. Concerning the scaling of these combustion conditions it must be considered, that in contrast to the amelet approach heat is irreversibly lost by turbulent advection and quenching. In this case Kat is much larger than one and an increase of turbulent stretch leads to extinction. Thus, it is expected that scaling at the extinction limit, requires Sl,0 to be modied additionally to compensate this effect. Based on these considerations the following hypothesis is formulated: u in The CIVB mechanism depends on the local balance of St and ~ the ow surrounding the recirculation zone. The relevant combustion can be assigned to the amelet regime. Following the idea that scaling of the turbulent ow variables does not affect St it is necessary to adjust Sl,crit by a1 to ensure the similarity of the scaled ow elds and the onset of ashback caused by CIVB. In contrast, TBVA depends on the ability of the reaction inside the recirculation zone to compensate the turbulent exchange of hot and cold gas with the main ow and to sustain a critical reaction volume. The relevant combustion can be assigned to the perfectly stirred reactor regime depending rather on ow residence time than on velocity. Consequently, the scaling factor of Sl,crit for ashback caused by TBVA is expected to be larger than a1 and close to a2.

298

G. Blesinger et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 290298 [17] R. Weber, Scaling characteristics of aerodynamics, heat transfer, and pollutant emissions in industrial ames, in: Proc. of the 26th Int. Symp. on Comb., 1996, pp. 33433354. [18] W. Leuckel, P. Schmittel, R. Weber, hnlichkeitsbasierte Skalierung turbulenter Gasammen (Scaling of turbulent gas ames based on system similarity), Gaswrme Int. 51 (2002) 400403.

[14] D. Bradley, P.H. Gaskell, X.J. Gu, A. Sedaghat, Premixed amelet modelling: factors inuencing the turbulent heat release rate source term and the turbulent burning velocity, Combust. Flame 143 (2005) 227245. [15] M. Weiss, N. Zarzalis, Experimental study of Markstein number effects on laminar famelet velocity in turbulent premised ames, Combust. Flame 154 (2008) 671691. [16] D.B. Spalding, The art of modelling, in: Proc. of the 9th Int. Symp. on Comb., 1962, pp. 833843.