Test Data AC2-09: Difference between revisions
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
The inlet mean and fluctuating velocity at the distance x/D=1 from the | The inlet mean and fluctuating velocity at the distance x/D=1 from the | ||
burner are shown in Fig.3. The inlet parabolic profile had a maximum | burner are shown in Fig.3. The inlet parabolic profile had a maximum | ||
at the centre of the fuel nozzle of | at the centre of the fuel nozzle of <math>U_{max}=62</math>m/s. | ||
The pilot flame bulk | |||
velocity [pic] and the coflow velocity [pic]. | velocity [pic] and the coflow velocity [pic]. | ||
Revision as of 10:00, 29 April 2011
SANDIA Flame D
Application Challenge AC2-09 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2024
Overview of Tests
The velocity measurements were performed with two-component fiber-optic laser Doppler anemometer (Dantec). All the details of the flow field measuring techniques applied in Sandia Flame D experiment are explained in[1]. Measured scalars for Sandia D Flame include temperature, mixture fraction, N2, O2, H2O, H2, CH4, CO, CO2, OH and NO. Experimental methods and measurement uncertainties are outlined in[1] Spontaneous Raman scattering of the beams from two Nd:YAG lasers (532 nm) was used to measure concentrations of the major species. The Rayleigh scattering signal was converted to temperature using a species-weighted scattering cross section, based on the Raman measurements. Linear laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) was used to measure OH and NO, and the fluorescence signals were corrected on a shot-to-shot basis for variations in Boltzmann fraction and collisional quenching rate. The concentration of CO was measured by Raman scattering and by two-photon laser-induced fluorescence (TPLIF).
TEST CASE
Description of Experiment
The Application Challenge includes just one test case, Sandia Flame D with defined Reynolds number of the fuel jet and the fuel and pilot flame compositions as given in Table EXP-A.
Boundary Data
The inlet mean and fluctuating velocity at the distance x/D=1 from the burner are shown in Fig.3. The inlet parabolic profile had a maximum at the centre of the fuel nozzle of m/s. The pilot flame bulk velocity [pic] and the coflow velocity [pic].
Measurement Errors
The flow field measurement statistical errors are estimated in[1] as below 5% for the mean velocities and within 10% for fluctuating components. The scalar measurement errors are estimated and analyzed in[2]. The relative uncertainty (not including statistical noise or potential effects of spatial averaging) is estimated to be within 2% for the Raman measurements, 5% for OH, 5% for CO, and 10% for NO.
Measured Data
References
Contributed by: Andrzej Boguslawski — Technical University of Częstochowa
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024