Comparison of Acoustic Velocity Perturbation Measurements Using PIV vs. Two-Microphone Technique

Abstract

Understanding combustion instabilities requires accurate measurements of the acoustic velocity perturbation into injectors. This is often accomplished via the use of the two microphone technique, as this only requires two pressure transducers. However, measurements of the actual velocities emerging from the injectors are not often taken, leaving questions regarding the assumptions about the acoustic velocity. A comparison of velocity measured at downstream of the injector with that of two-microphone technique can show the accuracy and limitations of two-microphone technique. In this paper, velocity measurements are taken using both particle image velocimetry (PIV) and the two-microphone technique in a high pressure facility designed for aeroengine injector measurements. The flow is excited using an area modulation device installed on the choked end of the combustion chamber, with PIV measurements enabled by optical access downstream of the injector through a quartz tube and windows. Acoustic velocity perturbations at the injector are determined by considering the Fourier transformed pressure fluctuations for two microphones installed at a known distance upstream of the injector. PIV measurements are realized by seeding the air flow with micrometric water particles under 2.5 bar pressure at ambient temperature. Phase locked velocity fields are realized by synchronizing the acquisition of PIV images with the revolution of the acoustic modulator using the pressure signal measured at the face of injector. The mean velocity fluctuation is calculated as the difference between maximum and minimum velocities, normalized by the mean velocity of the unforced case. Those values are compared with the peak-to-peak velocity fluctuation amplitude calculated by the two-microphone technique. Although the ranges of velocity fluctuations for both techniques are similar, the variation of fluctuation with forcing frequencies diverges significantly with frequency. The differences can be attributed to several limitations associated with of both techniques, such as the quality of the signal, the signal/noise ratio, the accuracy of PIV measurements and the assumption of isentropic flow of the particle velocity from the plenum through the injector. We conclude that two-microphone methods can be used as a reference value for the velocity fluctuation in low order applications such as flame transfer functions, but not for drawing conclusions regarding the absolute velocity fluctuations in the injector.