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