Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:27:39.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Forced synchronization of periodic and aperiodic thermoacoustic oscillations: lock-in, bifurcations and open-loop control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2018

Karthik Kashinath*
Affiliation:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Climate Science Department – Earth and Environmental Sciences Area, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Larry K. B. Li
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong
Matthew P. Juniper
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: karthikkashinath@gmail.com

Abstract

Synchronization is a universal concept in nonlinear science but has received little attention in thermoacoustics. In this numerical study, we take a dynamical systems approach to investigating the influence of harmonic acoustic forcing on three different types of self-excited thermoacoustic oscillations: periodic, quasi-periodic and chaotic. When the periodic system is forced, we find that: (i) at low forcing amplitudes, it responds at both the forcing frequency and the natural (self-excited) frequency, as well as at their linear combinations, indicating quasi-periodicity; (ii) above a critical forcing amplitude, the system locks in to the forcing; (iii) the bifurcations leading up to lock-in and the critical forcing amplitude required for lock-in depend on the proximity of the forcing frequency to the natural frequency; (iv) the response amplitude at lock-in may be larger or smaller than that of the unforced system and the system can exhibit hysteresis and the jump phenomenon owing to a cusp catastrophe; and (v) at forcing amplitudes above lock-in, the oscillations can become unstable and transition to chaos, or switch between different stable attractors depending on the forcing amplitude. When the quasi-periodic system is forced at a frequency equal to one of the two characteristic frequencies of the torus attractor, we find that lock-in occurs via a saddle-node bifurcation with frequency pulling. When the chaotic system is forced at a frequency close to the dominant frequency of its strange attractor, we find that it is possible to destroy chaos and establish stable periodic oscillations. These results show that the open-loop application of harmonic acoustic forcing can be an effective strategy for controlling periodic or aperiodic thermoacoustic oscillations. In some cases, we find that such forcing can reduce the response amplitude by up to 90 %, making it a viable way to weaken thermoacoustic oscillations.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 
Figure 0

Figure 1.Flame wrinkling due to vortex formation and roll-up. (a) Experimental image of a forced conical flame. (Reprinted from Karimi et al. (2009) with permission from Elsevier.) (b) The G-field obtained from numerical simulations of a forced conical flame. (Reprinted from Orchini et al. (2015) with permission from Cambridge University Press.) In both cases, the forcing is harmonic, with the same frequency and amplitude. The flame contour $G=0$ is highlighted to show that it can qualitatively reproduce the experimental results.

Figure 1

Table 1.The natural (unforced) states of the system to which harmonic forcing is applied. These states are reached by varying the flame position $x_{f}$ within a constant-area duct with open ends, whilst keeping all other parameters constant (Kashinath et al.2014, see figure 3 for details). The natural frequency is non-dimensionalized by the frequency of the fundamental acoustic mode in the absence of heat release and damping.

Figure 2

Figure 2.Saddle-node bifurcation to lock-in: the forced response of the system during period-1 oscillations (state A) when the forcing frequency is close to the natural frequency, $f_{f}/f_{n}=0.98$, where $f_{n}=2.304$. Time series and Poincaré maps are shown for increasing forcing amplitudes: (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}\equiv u_{f}^{\prime }/U_{0}=0.03$, (b) $0.06$, (c) $0.09$, (d) $0.11$, (e) $0.12$, (f) $0.125$ and (g) $0.13$.

Figure 3

Figure 3.Saddle-node bifurcation to lock-in: the phase difference (normalized by $2\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}$) between the system and the forcing at the conditions of figure 2.

Figure 4

Figure 4.Torus-death bifurcation to lock-in: the forced response of the system during period-1 oscillations (state B) when the forcing frequency is far from the natural frequency, $f_{f}/f_{n}=0.89$, where $f_{n}=1.125$. Time series, power spectra and phase portraits are shown for increasing forcing amplitudes: (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}\equiv u_{f}^{\prime }/U_{0}=0.00$ or unforced, (b) $0.02$, (c) $0.08$, (d) $0.14$, (e) $0.16$, (f) $0.18$, (g) $0.20$ and (h) $0.23$.

Figure 5

Figure 5.Torus-death bifurcation to lock-in: the phase difference (normalized by $2\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}$) between the system and the forcing at the conditions of figure 4.

Figure 6

Figure 6.Dependence of the beating frequency, $\unicode[STIX]{x0394}f=f_{f}-f_{n}^{\prime }$, on the forcing frequency, $f_{f}$, both normalized by the unforced natural frequency, $f_{n}$, at two forcing amplitudes: (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}=0.04$, where lock-in occurs via a saddle-node bifurcation for both $f_{f} and $f_{f}>f_{n}$, and (b) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}=0.06$, where lock-in occurs via a saddle-node bifurcation for $f_{f} but via a torus-death bifurcation for $f_{f}>f_{n}$.

Figure 7

Figure 7.The $1:1$ Arnold tongue for period-1 oscillations (state B) when forced across (a) a small range of frequency detuning ($0.98) and (b) a large range of frequency detuning ($0.85). The diamond markers denote saddle-node bifurcations, and the circular markers denote torus-death bifurcations. The dashed lines are linear fits to the saddle-node data on either side of $f_{f}/f_{n}=1$.

Figure 8

Figure 8.(a) The system response at lock-in, i.e. at the critical forcing amplitude, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}_{lock}$. The response is defined as the non-dimensional amplitude of the pressure oscillations, $A_{lock}=p^{\prime }/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}Mp_{0}$. As in figure 7(b), the diamond markers denote saddle-node bifurcations, and the circular markers denote torus-death bifurcations, with the different colours indicating different regimes. (b) The frequency-response curve for a forced Duffing oscillator with a soft cubic spring. The dashed branch (between points 3 and 6) is unstable and cannot be reached in experiments or simulations, leaving a discontinuous jump that resembles that seen in panel (a).

Figure 9

Figure 9.Intermittency route to lock-in: the forced response of the system during period-1 oscillations (state A) when $f_{f}/f_{n}=0.97$, where $f_{n}=2.304$. Time series and Poincaré maps are shown for increasing forcing amplitudes: (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}\equiv u_{f}^{\prime }/U_{0}=0.06$, (b) $0.12$, (c) $0.16$, (d) $0.18$, (e) $0.20$, (f) $0.21$, (g) $0.22$, (h) $0.23$ and (i) $0.24$.

Figure 10

Figure 10.Intermittency route to lock-in: the phase difference (normalized by $2\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}$) between the system and the forcing at the conditions of figure 9. The arrows show that phase slips can be greater than $2\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}$.

Figure 11

Figure 11.Transition to chaos from lock-in via period-doubling bifurcations (route I): the forced response of the system during period-1 oscillations (state B) when $f_{f}/f_{n}=1$, where $f_{n}=1.125$. Time series, power spectra, phase portraits and Poincaré maps are shown for increasing forcing amplitudes: (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}\equiv u_{f}^{\prime }/U_{0}=0.16$, (b) $0.24$, (c) $0.30$, (d) $0.34$ and (e) $0.36$.

Figure 12

Figure 12.Switching between different stable attractors after lock-in: the forced response of the system during period-1 oscillations (state A) when $f_{f}/f_{n}=1.06$, where $f_{n}=2.304$. Time series, power spectra, phase portraits and Poincaré maps are shown for increasing forcing amplitudes: (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}\equiv u_{f}^{\prime }/U_{0}=0.03$, (b) $0.16$, (c) $0.18$, (d) $0.21$ and (e) $0.24$.

Figure 13

Figure 13.Synchronization of a $\mathbb{T}^{2}$ attractor: the forced response of the system during quasi-periodic oscillations (state C) when forced at the dominant characteristic frequency of its 2-torus, $f_{f}/f_{1}=1$, where $f_{1}=2.22$. Time series, power spectra and Poincaré maps are shown for increasing forcing amplitudes: (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}\equiv u_{f}^{\prime }/U_{0}=0.00$ or unforced, (b) $0.09$, (c) $0.18$, (d) $0.24$, (e) $0.30$ and (f) $0.31$.

Figure 14

Figure 14.Synchronization of a strange attractor: the forced response of the system during chaotic oscillations (state D) when forced at the dominant frequency of its unforced spectrum, $f_{f}/f_{n}=1$, where $f_{n}=1.16$. Time series, power spectra, phase portraits and Poincaré maps are shown for increasing forcing amplitudes: (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}\equiv u_{f}^{\prime }/U_{0}=0.00$ or unforced, (b) $0.09$, (c) $0.18$, (d) $0.27$, (e) $0.30$ and (f) $0.31$.