Proceedings of the 7th International and 45th National Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power (FMFP)

December 10-12, 2018, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India

FMFP2017–PAPER NO. 436

Open Loop Control of Lean Premixed Flames Near Blowout

Somnath De Arijit Bhattacharya Rakin Bin Bokhtiar

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Dept. Of Mechanical Engineering, Dept. Of Mechanical Engineering,
Jadavpur University, Kolkata- Jadavpur University, Kolkata-700032 Jadavpur University, Kolkata-
700032 Email:arijitbhattacharya996@gmail.com 700032
Email:somnathde.mec@gmail.com Email: rakinbokhtiar@gmail.com

Prasanna Mondal Gourav Manohar Sardar Achintya Mukhopadhyay

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Jadavpur University, Kolkata-700032 Jadavpur University, Kolkata-700032 Jadavpur University, Kolkata-700032
Email: prasannamondal34@gmail.com Email: Gsardar05@gmail.com Email:achintya.mukho@gmail.com

Swarnendu Sen
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata-700032
Email:sen.swarnendu@gmail.com

Abstract ratio) of a reaction zone is reduced, extinction events

Lean blowout is one of the most important topics of
research in the area of gas turbine combustors. It is
important to develop robust methodologies for mitigation
of lean blowout. In this work, we have shown two
possible flow systems for this purpose, namely pilot
injection and multiport fuel injection. Both multi stage
(after 3.07% bypass) and pilot injection system controls
the blowout. Multistage injection system is found as
efficient as Pilot injection at around 5%, 9%, 14% and
15% bypass fuel though the overall shifting trend is not
sharp.
Keywords: LBO; Pilot injection; Multi-port staging;
Control; Bypass.
I. INTRODUCTION
Multiple ways have been investigated for lowering NOx
emissions. A very good example of that is lean
combustion. Lean Premixed Pre-vaporized (LPP)
combustors provide quickly atomized fuel which is mixed
with heated air and get vaporized before going into
combustion chamber. This way of burning is significant
as low pollutants (mainly NOx and soot) are formed. The
main issue in LPP combustion is the flame stability
during lean operation. The flame stability problem is
termed as "Lean Blowout" (LBO). Stabilization of lean
premixed flame in gas turbine combustors is very
challenging due to low flame speed against the high
upstream flow rate. As the equivalence ratio (or fuel -air
1
become more pronounced, and the lean limit for stable
operation may be reached. The problem arises for aircraft
engines also where vehicle thrust purely depends on
combustion. During rapid decelerations, sudden changes
in throttle setting may reduce the fuel flow rate rapidly
while the slower transience of air flow is monitored by the
rotational inertia of the compressor [1].This leads to fatal
accident. For military aircrafts involved in high altitude
flights, the stability limit is considerably reduced. This
requires descent to lower altitudes to facilitate relight.
So for a designer it is challenging to construct a
combustor which would be operated at lean condition
safely. Enhanced performance can be obtained with a
reduction of margin of safety from LBO limit. Therefore
ability to sense along with control LBO can provide
significant payoffs.
II. BACKGROUND
Based on previous works prior to blow off, flame
undergoes large scale unsteadiness [2]. In this situation,
lean flame exhibits local flame loss which leads to the
frequent extinction and re-ignition [3]. These so called
“precursors” of blowout increases as the flame further
moves to lean just before blowout. LBO limits have been
investigated for swirling flame [4], dump combustors [5]
and bluff body [6] stabilized flames. Kibrya and Karim
[7] showed that the blowout limit of a central jet diffusion
flames can be increased using multiple smaller pilot jet
flames. Muruganandam et al. [8] used the concept of pilot
in non-premixed liquid fueled combustors. They took two
types of pilot injection system and showed the better
application of pressure nozzle over macrolaminate low
flow nozzle which produces finely atomized spray. In
their subsequent work [9], they demonstrated both open
loop and closed loop system for active control of
premixed gas turbine combustors. In this work, they
tested three pilot injection systems. According to their
investigations, central pilot injection system and annular
piloting did not work well whereas central piloting system
with some modification by introducing pilot fuel to mix
with the main air-fuel mixture at the upstream of final
swirler showed better control.
In earlier works stated above, researchers configured
different types of piloting system. From that point of
view, it can be said that arrangement of pilot injection for
better control depends upon the combustor configuration.
Our current research aims to extend the control
approach using multi-port stage injection and pilot in
premixed swirled dump plane combustor.
II. EXPERIMENTAL
We have designed a swirled dump plane single burner
which comprises of a premixing section, a combustion
chamber and an exhaust chamber. Premixer is a co flow
chamber with a pilot placed inside it and an annular
passage is kept at the outside of pilot tube for the
incoming air-fuel mixture to the combustor. A swirler is
fitted around the pilot tube in annular section at 15 mm
upstream of inlet of the combustor. The swirl vane angle
is 600 to the axial direction. There are four holes
circumferentially placed on the premixing tube for air and
fuel entrances. Each hole is positioned 900 from each
other. The main fuel entrance (as shown in the figure 1) is
45 mm above from air entry. Separate entry point is made
for fuel at 180 mm from the main fuel entry. This is done
for pouring the additional fuel for multi-fuel port stage
injection. A quartz tube is placed outside the combustor
for optical access.
We have taken liquefied petroleum gas (60% Butane
and 40% Propane, by volume) popularly used as a fuel for
industrial work. Main fuel flow is metered by the Alborg
MFC (CH4, 0-40 LPM, calibrated for LPG) before
entering into the premixing tube. Bypass fuel is measured
by the Alborg MFC (CH4, 0-10 LPM, calibrated for
LPG). Air is supplied from compressor and metered
through Alicat MFC (0-250 SLPM). We used a high
speed camera (Nikon J5) for capturing the flame
behaviour. Apart from that, we built a Labview colour
sensing programme through which transition to lifted
flame is identified in the current work.
III. METHODOLOGY
In our study, flow control system has manual valves.
For varying degree of premixing flows studied by us [10],
2
we saw that blowout point was gradually shifting towards
more lean mixture with decrease in premixedness of the
mixture. In the current study, blowout equivalence ratio
(ФLBO) is obtained for Port A and Port B at 0.64  0.0179
and 0.50  0.017 respectively. So, our strategy is to allow
the additional fuel through Port B along with the main
fuel through Port A when the combustor is operated near
LBO. This is called multi-port staging injection. Also, in a
separate experiment small amount of fuel is allowed
through the pilot, which opens into the combustor dump
plane. Now we compare two approaches. So, instead of
Figure 1: Experimental setup-(a) premixing chamber,
(b) optically accessible combustion chamber and (c)
swirler.
supplying total fuel through Port A, if we think of
supplying a small fraction of total fuel through Port B or
pilot tube along with main fuel entered into Port A,
blowout time and equivalence ratio can be enhanced.
Bypass fuel fraction is obtained as:
𝑚𝐵𝐹
Bypass fuel fraction = (1)
𝑚𝐵𝐹 +𝑚𝑀
where 𝑚𝐵𝐹 = mass flow rate through Port B or pilot and
𝑚𝑀 = mass flow rate through PortA. Mass flow rates at
blowout situation are considered. We consider ФLBO,b as
equivalence ratio when pilot line or Port B is on. ФLBO,b*
is considered as the equivalence ratio when the fuel flow
through Port B or pilot is off. ФLBO is considered as
equivalence ratio of the system at lean blowout. Naturally,
when bypass factor = 0, ФLBO = ФLBO,b*, otherwise,
ФLBO=ФLBO,b.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In our work, air is kept constant at 80 SLPM. Fuel is
gradually reduced in terms of 0.1 SLPM. Each experiment
is started from stoichiometric condition. We observe the
changes in flame dynamics in this way - stable flame,
lifted-off flame, elongation of lean flame, extinction-
reignition and blowout (figure 3). In this study, we
observe that the flame characteristics changes mostly
when the flame comes in lifted mode (figure 3f). In this We started our experiment from little bit higher than
situation, local flame speed becomes less than upstream stoichiometric or chemically correct mixture (Φ =1.05).
cold mixture velocity. But still the flame manages to Then we moved towards blowout point by lowering the
survive. We observe the pulsation in the flame base equivalence ratio in steps of 0.04. At each equivalence
frequently. After that, the flame speed reduces to such an ratio, we allow the flame to stay for 40 seconds to capture
extent that the blowout becomes unavoidable. So, lifted the correct dynamics for that situation. Figure 6 shows
mode of the premixed flame can be considered as an early that with the increment of bypass line time duration
precursor of the blow-off. through which flame is sustained before LBO increases
In the real gas turbine combustor, side walls of the
combustion chamber are fully covered for which direct
optical access is not helpful. But it would be beneficial if
we provide a hole to access optical probe for visualization
of the flame (just like pressure transducer). Figure 2
shows the changes in behaviour of the flame which is
described in terms of intensity ratio of the flame colours,
red/blue. The ratio is reduced sharply at Φ=0.78 (or Φ/
ΦLBO = 1.235) where lifted flame initiates (figure 3f). So,
without observing the flame through quartz tube, we get
the alarm of this transition when we set a threshold value
of the ratio at 0.7.

Figure 3: Snap shots of flame at different operating conditions for portA-

(a) Ф/ФLBO =1.52, (b) Ф/ФLBO =1.47, (c) Ф/ФLBO =1.41, (d) Ф/ФLBO =1.35, (e)
Ф/ФLBO =1.294, (f) Ф/ФLBO =1.235, (g) Ф/ФLBO =1.17, (h) Ф/ФLBO =1.117, (i)
Figure 2: Red/Blue colour ratio at different operating conditions. The ratio Ф/ФLBO =1.0.
is shown up to the LBO point.

A. Multi-Port staging injection

Here control strategy is to deliver small fraction of the
total fuel through Port B while main fuel is supplied
through Port A. Main fuel specifies the major portion of
total fuel. From our experimental observation, we can
understand the transition of the flame dynamics where the
flame comes in lifted mode. So, as soon as we identify the
transition of the flame through colour ratio, we activate
the bypass process. If we increase the bypass fuel fraction
beyond 3.07% (which is marked with red rectangle),
significant change in LBO has been captured in figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of LBO equivalence ratio with the bypass fuel

Blowout point is not linearly shifted towards leaner limit

with increment in fuel amount. But still we observed that
the flame extinguished always below the LBO line in
figure 4. Also main fuel (through Port A) flow during
blowout decreases.
We observe that blowout equivalence is 0.64 when
bypass line is off (corresponding to Φ/ ΦLBO = 1 in figure
4). If we activate the bypass line and increase the fuel
fraction beyond 3.07%, LBO is extended. This is more
clearly revealed in Fig. 5. It has been noticed that at
bypass value of 3.26, 8.7, 13.54 and 14.64, LBO point is
significantly shifted (figure 5).
3
B. Pilot fuel injection
Here addition of fuel is accomplished by injection of a
small fraction of total fuel through a pilot located near the
stabilization zone in premixed combustor.
From figure 7, we notice clearly that blowout point is
shifted linearly towards the more lean mixture as we
increase the bypass fuel. This observation is taken up to
bypass factor of 15.315. Also figure 8 tells that maximum
blowout point is moved for maximum fuel split. In our
work in this paper, we have limited the observation of
fuel split within 15.315% for pilot considering the NOx
formation.
Figure 5: Percentage of shifting of lean blowout as the bypass fuel
increases.
Figure 6: Variation of flame sustaining time for port A with the bypass fuel
through Port B. τ is defined as the total time from ignition to lean blowout.
Figure 7: Variation of LBO equivalence ratio with the bypass fuel which is
poured into pilot.
Figure 8: Percentage of shifting of lean blowout as the bypass fuel
increases through Pilot.
The fuel rich pilot operation directly affects the inner
recirculation area inside the combustion chamber and thus
enhances the feed back of the heat transfer from hot gas to
cold mixture near LBO. So, it is expected to get good
response of the piloted flame in LBO control. But In case
of multi stage injection, the LBO control is shown as
good as the pilot injection at some bypass fractions.
Entrance of the additional fuel just prior to the
4
combustion chamber increases the non-premixedness in
the fuel-air mixture. Therefore, flame is sustained for
longer time.
.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In our current analysis, we have compared two possible
approaches. Multi-port staging injection shows the
efficient control of blowout at few bypass percentage
which are comparable with the pilot injection. However,
in future, this study needs to be extended for the partially
premixed flames.
Acknowledgements
First author would like to acknowledge the financial help
of AR&DB (Aeronautics Research and Development
Board), India. Second author is also thankful to DST
SERB, India.
REFERENCES
[1] T.J. Rosfjord, J.M. Cohen, Evaluation of the Transient
Operation of Advanced Gas Turbine Combustors, J.
Propulsion and Power, 11 (1995) 497-504.
[2]H. Nicolson, J.P. Field, Some experimental techniques
for the investigation of the mechanism of flame
stabilization in the wakes of bluff bodies, Symposium on
combustion and flame, and explosion phenomena, 3
(1948) 44-68.
[3] T. Muruganandam, S. Nair, Y. Neumeier, T. Lieuwen,
J. Seitzman, Optical and acoustic sensing of lean blowout
precursors, 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, (2002) 3732.
[4] N. Syred, J. Beer, Combustion in swirling flows: a
review, Combustion and flame, 23 (1974) 143-201.
[5] K. Schadow, E. Gutmark, Combustion instability
related to vortex shedding in dump combustors and their
passive control, Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science, 18 (1992) 117-132.
[6] S. Chaudhuri, B.M. Cetegen, Blowoff characteristics
of bluff-body stabilized conical premixed flames with
upstream spatial mixture gradients and velocity
oscillations, Combustion and flame, 153 (2008) 616-633.
[7] M.G. Kibrya, G.A. Karim, Blowout limits of a jet
diffusion flame in the presence of small surrounding jet
pilot flames, J. energy resources technology, 118 (1996)
140-144.
[8] T. Muruganandam, S. Nair, R. Olsen, Y. Neumeier, A.
Meyers, T. Lieuwen, J. Seitzman, J. Jagoda, B. Zinn.
Blowout control in turbine engine combustors. 42nd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit; (2004).
637.
[9] T. Muruganandam, S. Nair, D. Scarborough, Y.
Neumeier, J. Jagoda, T. Lieuwen, J. Seitzman, B. Zinn,
Active control of lean blowout for turbine engine
combustors, Journal of Propulsion and Power, 21 (2005)
807-814.