1 / 41

Paul D. Ronney Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA http://ronney.usc.edu/sofball

Fire in space: results from STS-107 / Columbia's final mission. Paul D. Ronney Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA http://ronney.usc.edu/sofball. National Central University Jhong-Li, Taiwan October 4, 2005. OUTLINE. About USC & PDR Motivation Time scales Flame balls

morgan
Download Presentation

Paul D. Ronney Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA http://ronney.usc.edu/sofball

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fire in space: results from STS-107 / Columbia's final mission Paul D. Ronney Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA http://ronney.usc.edu/sofball National Central University Jhong-Li, Taiwan October 4, 2005

  2. OUTLINE • About USC & PDR • Motivation • Time scales • Flame balls • Summary

  3. University of Southern California • Established 125 years ago this week! • …jointly by a Catholic, a Protestant and a Jew - USC has always been a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, coeducational university • Today: 32,000 students, 3000 faculty • 2 main campuses: University Park and Health Sciences • USC Trojans football team ranked #1 in USA last 2 years

  4. USC Viterbi School of Engineering • Naming gift by Andrew & Erma Viterbi • Andrew Viterbi: co-founder of Qualcomm, co-inventor of CDMA • 1900 undergraduates, 3300 graduate students, 165 faculty, 30 degree options • $135 million external research funding • Distance Education Network (DEN): 900 students in 28 M.S. degree programs; 171 MS degrees awarded in 2005 • More info: http://viterbi.usc.edu

  5. Paul Ronney • B.S. Mechanical Engineering, UC Berkeley • M.S. Aeronautics, Caltech • Ph.D. in Aeronautics & Astronautics, MIT • Postdocs: NASA Glenn, Cleveland; US Naval Research Lab, Washington DC • Assistant Professor, Princeton University • Associate/Full Professor, USC • Research interests • Microscale combustion and power generation (10/4, INER; 10/5 NCKU) • Microgravity combustion and fluid mechanics (10/4, NCU) • Turbulent combustion (10/7, NTHU) • Internal combustion engines • Ignition, flammability, extinction limits of flames (10/3, NCU) • Flame spread over solid fuel beds • Biophysics and biofilms (10/6, NCKU)

  6. Paul Ronney

  7. MOTIVATION • Gravity influences combustion through • Buoyant convection • Sedimentation in multi-phase systems • Many experimental & theoretical studies of µg combustion • Applications • Spacecraft fire safety • Better understanding of combustion at earth gravity

  8. Time scales (hydrocarbon-air, 1 atm) • Conclusions • Buoyancy unimportant for near-stoichiometric flames (tinv & tvis >> tchem) • Buoyancy strongly influences near-limit flames at 1g (tinv & tvis < tchem) • Radiation effects unimportant at 1g (tvis << trad; tinv << trad) • Radiation effects dominate flames with low SL (trad ≈ tchem), but only observable at µg

  9. µg methods • Drop towers - short duration (1 - 10 sec) (≈ trad), high quality (10-5go) • Aircraft - longer duration (25 sec), low quality (10-2go - 10-3go) • Sounding rockets - still longer duration (5 min), fair quality (10-3go - 10-6go) • Orbiting spacecraft - longest duration (16 days), best quality (10-5go - 10-6go)

  10. “FLAME BALLS” • Zeldovich, 1944: stationary spherical flames possible • 2T & 2C = 0 have solutions for unbounded domain in spherical geometry • T(r) = C1 + C2/r- bounded as r  ∞ • Not possible for • Cylinder (T = C1 + C2ln(r)) • Plane(T = C1+C2r) • Mass conservation requires Uº0 everywhere (no convection) – only diffusive transport • Perfectly valid steady solution to the governing equations for energy & mass conservationfor any combustible mixture, but unstable for virtually all mixtures except…

  11. “FLAME BALLS” • T ~ 1/r - unlike propagating flame where T ~ e-r - dominated by 1/r tail (with r3 volume effects!) Flame ball: a tiny dog wagged by an enormous tail

  12. Flame balls - history • Zeldovich, 1944; Joulin, 1985; Buckmaster, 1985: adiabatic flame balls are unstable • Ronney (1990): seemingly stable, stationary flame balls accidentally discovered in very lean H2-air mixtures in drop-tower experiment • Farther from limit - expanding cellular flames Far from limit Close to limit

  13. Flame balls - history • Only seen in mixtures having very low Lewis number • Flame ball: Lewis # effect is so drastic that flame temp. can greatly exceed adiabatic (planar flame) temp. (Tad)

  14. Flame balls - history • Results confirmed in parabolic aircraft flights (Ronney et al., 1994) but g-jitter problematic KC135 µg aircraft test

  15. Flame balls - history • Buckmaster, Joulin, et al.: window of stable conditions with(1) radiative loss near-limit, (2) low gravity & (3) low Lewis number (2 of 3 is no go!) • Predictions consistent with experimental observations

  16. Flame balls - practical importance • Improved understanding of lean combustion • Spacecraft fire safety - flame balls exist in mixtures outside one-g extinction limits • Stationary spherical flame - simplest interaction of chemistry & transport - test combustion models • Motivated > 30 theoretical papers to date • The flame ball is to combustion research as the fruit fly is to genetics research

  17. Practical importance

  18. Space Experiments • Need space experiment - long duration, high quality µg • Structure Of Flame Balls At Low Lewis-number (SOFBALL) • Combustion Module facility • 3 Space Shuttle missions • STS-83 (April 4 - 8, 1997) • STS-94 (July 1 - 16, 1997) • STS-107 (Jan 16 - Feb 1, 2003)

  19. Space experiments - mixtures • STS-83 & STS-94 (1997) - 4 mixture types • 1 atm H2-air (Le ≈ 0.3) • 1 atm H2-O2-CO2 (Le ≈ 0.2) • 1 atm H2-O2-SF6 (Le ≈ 0.06) • 3 atm H2-O2-SF6 (Le ≈ 0.06) • None of the mixtures tested in space will burn at earth gravity, nor will they burn as plane flames • STS-107 (2003) - 3 new mixture types • High pressure H2-air - different chemistry • CH4-O2-SF6 test points - different chemistry • H2-O2-CO2-He test points - higher Lewis number (but still < 1) - more likely to exhibit oscillating flame balls

  20. Experimental apparatus • Combustion vessel - cylinder, 32 cm i.d. x 32 cm length • 15 individual premixed gas bottles • Ignition system - spark with variable gap & energy • Imaging - 3 views, intensified video • Temperature - fine-wire thermocouples, 6 locations • Radiometers (4), chamber pressure, acceleration (3 axes) • Gas chromatograph

  21. Experimental apparatus

  22. Flame balls in space • SOFBALL-1 (1997): flame balls stable for > 500 seconds (!) 4.0% H2-air, 223 sec elapsed time 4.9% H2- 9.8% O2 - 85.3% CO2, 500 sec 6.6% H2- 13.2% O2 - 79.2% SF6, 500 sec

  23. Surprise #1 - steadiness of flame balls • Flame balls survived much longer than expected without drifting into chamber walls • Aircraft µg data indicated drift velocity (V) ≈ (gr*)1/2 • Gr = O(103) - V) ≈ (gr*)1/2 - like inviscid bubble rise • In space, flame balls should drift into chamber walls after ≈ 10 min at 1 µg • Space experiments: Gr = O(10-1) - creeping flow - apparently need to use viscous relation: • Similar to recent prediction (Joulin et al., submitted) • Much lower drift speeds with viscous formula - possibly hours before flame balls would drift into walls • Also - fuel consumption rates (1 - 2 Watts/ball) could allow several hours of burn time

  24. Surprise #2 - flame ball drift • Flame balls always drifted apart at a continually decreasing rate • Flame balls interact by (A) warming each other - attractive (B) depleting each other’s fuel - repulsive • Analysis (Buckmaster & Ronney, 1998) • Adiabatic flame balls, two effects exactly cancel • Non-adiabatic flame balls, fuel effect wins - thermal effect disappears at large spacings due to radiative loss

  25. Flame ball drift

  26. Surprise #3: g-jitter effects on flame balls • Radiometer data drastically affected by impulses caused by small VRCS thrusters used to control Orbiter attitude • Temperature data moderately affected • Vibrations (zero integrated impulse) - no effect • Flame balls & their surrounding hot gas fields are very sensitive accelerometers! • Requested & received “free drift” (no thruster firings) during most subsequent tests with superb results

  27. G-jitter effects on flame balls Without free drift With free drift

  28. G-jitter effects on flame balls - continued • Flame balls seem to respond more strongly than ballistically to acceleration impulses, I.e. change in ball velocity ≈ 2 ∫gdt • Consistent with “added mass” effect - maximum possible acceleration of spherical bubble is 2g

  29. Zel’dovich’s personal watch was flown on STS-94

  30. Astronaut Janice Voss with Zel’dovich’s watch

  31. Changes from SOFBALL-1 to SOFBALL-2 • SpaceHab vs. SpaceLab module • Higher energy ignition system - ignite weaker mixtures nearer flammability limit • Much longer test times (up to 10,000 sec) • Free drift provided for usable radiometer data • 3rd intensified camera with narrower field of view - improved resolution of flame ball imaging • Extensive ground commanding capabilities added - reduce crew time scheduling issues

  32. SOFBALL-2 objectives based on SOFBALL-1 results • Can flame balls last much longer than the 500 sec maximum test time on SOFBALL-1 if free drift (no thruster firings) can be maintained for the entire test? • Answer: not usually - some type of flame ball motion, not related to microgravity disturbances, causes flame balls to drift to walls within ≈ 1500 seconds -but there was an exception • We have no idea what caused this motion - working hypothesis is a radiation-induced migration of flame ball • The shorter-than-expected test times meant enough time for multiple reburns of each mixture within the flight timeline

  33. Example videos made from individual frames Test point 14a (3.45% H2 in air, 3 atm), 1200 sec total burn time Test point 6c (6.2% H2 - 12.4% O2 - balance SF6, 3 atm), 1500 sec total burn time

  34. SOFBALL-2 objectives based on SOFBALL-1 results • Do the flame balls in methane fuel (CH4-O2-SF6 ) behave differently from those in hydrogen fuel (e.g. H2-O2-SF6) ? • Answer: Yes! They frequently drifted in corkscrew patterns!We have no idea why. 9.9% CH4 - 19.8% O2 - 70.3% SF6

  35. Summary of results - all flights • SOFBALL hardware performed almost flawlessly on all missions • 63 successful tests in 33 different mixtures • 33 flame balls on STS-107 were named by the crew) • Free drift: microgravity levels were excellent (average accelerations less than 1 micro-g for most tests) • Despite the loss of Columbia on STS-107, much data was obtained via downlink during mission • ≈ 90% of thermocouple, radiometer & chamber pressure • ≈ 90% of gas chromatograph data • ≈ 65% (24/37) of runs has some digital video frames (not always a complete record to the end of the test) - video data need to locate flame balls in 3D for interpretation of thermocouple and radiometer data

  36. Accomplishments • First premixed combustion experiment in space • Weakest flames ever burned, either in space or on the ground (≈ 0.5 Watts) (Birthday candle ≈ 50 watts) • Leanest flames ever burned, either in space or on the ground (3.2 % H2 in air; equivalence ratio 0.078) (leanest mixture that will burn in your car engine: equivalence ratio ≈ 0.7) • Longest-lived flame ever burned in space (81 minutes)

  37. Conclusions • SOFBALL - dominant factors in flame balls: • Far-field (1/r tail, r3 volume effects, r2/a time constant) • Radiative heat loss • Radiative reabsorption effects in CO2, SF6 • Branching vs. recombination of H + O2 - flame balls like “Wheatstone bridge” for near-limit chemistry • General comments about space experiments • Space experiments are not just extensions of ground-based µg experiments • Expect surprises and be adaptable • µg investigators quickly spoiled by space experiments “Data feeding frenzy” during STS-94 • Caution when interpreting accelerometer data - frequency range, averaging, integrated vs. peak

  38. Thanks to… • National Central University • Prof. Shenqyang Shy • Combustion Institute (Bernard Lewis Lectureship) • NASA (research support)

  39. Thanks Dave, Ilan, KC and Mike!

  40. …and the rest!

  41. And ‘The Boss’!

More Related