Assessment of Finite Rate Chemistry Large Eddy Simulation Combustion Models

被引:0
作者
E. Fedina
C. Fureby
G. Bulat
W. Meier
机构
[1] The Swedish Defence Research Agency – FOI,Defence Security Systems Technology
[2] Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery Ltd.,Institut für Verbrennungstechnik
[3] Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR),undefined
来源
Flow, Turbulence and Combustion | 2017年 / 99卷
关键词
Finite rate chemistry model; Comparison; Gas turbine; Combustion; LES;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Large Eddy Simulations (LES) of a swirl-stabilized natural gas-air flame in a laboratory gas turbine combustor is performed using six different LES combustion models to provide a head-to-head comparative study. More specifically, six finite rate chemistry models, including the thickened flame model, the partially stirred reactor model, the approximate deconvolution model and the stochastic fields model have been studied. The LES predictions are compared against experimental data including velocity, temperature and major species concentrations measured using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), OH Planar Laser-Induced Fluorescence (OH-PLIF), OH chemiluminescence imaging and one-dimensional laser Raman scattering. Based on previous results a skeletal methane-air reaction mechanism based on the well-known Smooke and Giovangigli mechanism was used in this work. Two computational grids of about 7 and 56 million cells, respectively, are used to quantify the influence of grid resolution. The overall flow and flame structures appear similar for all LES combustion models studied and agree well with experimental still and video images. Takeno flame index and chemical explosives mode analysis suggest that the flame is premixed and resides within the thin reaction zone. The LES results show good agreement with the experimental data for the axial velocity, temperature and major species, but differences due to the choice of LES combustion model are observed and discussed. Furthermore, the intrinsic flame structure and the flame dynamics are similarly predicted by all LES combustion models examined. Within this range of models, there is no strong case for deciding which model performs the best.
引用
收藏
页码:385 / 409
页数:24
相关论文
共 173 条
[1]  
Staffelbach G(2009)undefined Proc. Comb. Inst. 32 2909-undefined
[2]  
Gicquel L(2007)undefined Proc. Combust. Inst. 31 49-undefined
[3]  
Boudier G(2010)undefined Combust. Flame 157 1087-undefined
[4]  
Poinsot T(2011)undefined Proc. Combust. Inst. 33 1629-undefined
[5]  
B. RS(2012)undefined Combust. Flame 159 2690-undefined
[6]  
Li Z(2010)undefined Eng. Gas Turbines Power 132 11150-undefined
[7]  
Li B(2006)undefined AIAA J, 44 674-undefined
[8]  
Sun Z(2004)undefined J. New Phys. 6 35-undefined
[9]  
Bai X(1962)undefined J. Fluid Mech. 13 82-undefined
[10]  
Aldén M(1979)undefined Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 5 207-undefined