0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

Large Eddy Simulations of Hydrogen Oxidation at Ultra-Wet Conditions in a Model Gas Turbine Combustor Applying Detailed Chemistry

[+] Author and Article Information
Oliver Krüger

e-mail: o.krueger@tu-berlin.de

Christian Oliver Paschereit

Chair of Fluid Dynamics,
Hermann-Föttinger-Institut,
Technische Universität Berlin,
Müller-Breslau-Str. 8,
D-10623 Berlin, Germany

Christophe Duwig

Division of Fluid Mechanics,
Department of Energy Sciences,
Lund University,
Box 118,
SE-22100 Lund, Sweden

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. Manuscript received June 18, 2012; final manuscript received August 9, 2012; published online January 8, 2013. Editor: Dilip R. Ballal.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 135(2), 021501 (Jan 08, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-12-1162; doi: 10.1115/1.4007718 History: Received June 18, 2012; Revised August 09, 2012

Humidified gas turbines (HGT) offer the attractive possibility of increasing plant efficiency without the cost of an additional steam turbine as is the case for a combined gas-steam cycle. In addition to efficiency gains, adding steam into the combustion process reduces NOx emissions. It increases the specific heat capacity (hence, lowering possible temperature peaks) and reduces the oxygen concentration. Despite the thermophysical effects, steam alters the kinetics and, thus, reduces NOx formation significantly. In addition, it allows operation using a variety of fuels, including hydrogen and hydrogen-rich fuels. Therefore, ultra-wet gas turbine operation is an attractive solution for industrial applications. The major modification compared to current gas turbines lies in the design of the combustion chamber, which should accommodate a large amount of steam without losing in stability. In the current study, the premixed combustion of pure hydrogen diluted with different steam levels is investigated. The effect of steam on the combustion process is addressed using detailed chemistry. In order to identify an adequate oxidation mechanism, several candidates are identified and compared. The respective performances are assessed based on laminar premixed flame calculations under dry and wet conditions, for which experimentally determined flame speeds are available. Further insight is gained by observing the effect of steam on the flame structure, in particular HO2 and OH* profiles. Moreover, the mechanism is used for the simulation of a turbulent flame in a generic swirl burner fed with hydrogen and humidified air. Large eddy simulations (LES) are employed. It is shown that by adding steam, the heat release peak spreads. At high steam content, the flame front is thicker and the flame extends further downstream. The dynamics of the oxidation layer under dry and wet conditions is captured; thus, an accurate prediction of the velocity field, flame shape, and position is achieved. The latter is compared with experimental data (PIV and OH* chemiluminescence). The reacting simulations were conducted under atmospheric conditions. The steam-air ratio was varied from 0% to 50%.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Bhargava, A., Colket, M., Sowa, W., Casleton, K., and Maloney, D., 2000, “An Experimental and Modeling Study of Humid Air Premixed Flames,” J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 122, pp. 405–411. [CrossRef]
Göke, S., Göckeler, K., Krüger, O., and Paschereit, C. O., 2010, “Computational and Experimental Study of Premixed Combustion at Ultra Wet Conditions,” Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2010, Glasgow, UK, June 14–18, ASME Paper No. GT2010-23417, pp. 1–11. [CrossRef]
Jonsson, M., and Yan, J., 2005, “Humidified Gas Turbines—A Review of Proposed and Implemented Cycles,” Energy, 30, pp. 1013–1078. [CrossRef]
Bianco, M., Camporeale, S. M., and Fortunato, B., 2001, “CFD Simulation of Humid Air Premixed Flame Combustion Chamber for Evaporative Gas Turbine Cycles,” Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2001, New Orleans, LA, June 4–7, ASME Paper No. GT2001-0061.
Guo, P., Zang, S., and Ge, B., 2008, “LES and Experimental Study of Flow Features in Humid-Air Combustion Chamber With Non-Premixed Circular-Disc Stabilized Flames,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2008, Berlin, June 9–13, ASME Paper No. GT2008-50940. [CrossRef]
Ó.Conaire, M., Curran, H. J., Simmie, J. M., Pitz, W. J., and Westbrook, C. K., 2004, “A Comprehensive Modeling Study of Hydrogen Oxidation,” Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 36(11), pp. 603–622. [CrossRef]
Dowdy, D., 1991, “The Use of Expanding Spherical Flames to Determine Burning Velocities and Stretch Effects in Hydrogen/Air Mixtures,” Sym. (Int.) Combust., 23(1), pp. 325–332. [CrossRef]
Tse, S., Zhu, D., and Law, C., 2000, “Morphology and Burning Rates of Expanding Spherical Flames in H2/O2/Inert Mixtures up to 60 Atmospheres,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 28(2), pp. 1793–1800. [CrossRef]
David, W. T., and Mann, J., 1942, “Influence of Water Vapour on Flame Gas Temperatures,” Nature, 150(3809), pp. 521–522. [CrossRef]
Kuehl, D. K., 1962, “Effects of Water on Burning Velocity of Hydrogen-Air Flames,” J. Am. Rocket Soc., 32, pp. 1724–1726.
Levy, A., 1963, “Effects of Water on Hydrogen Flames,” AIAA J., 1(5), pp. 1239–1239. [CrossRef]
Dixon-Lewis, G., and Williams, A., 1964, “The Rate of Heat Release in Some Slow Burning Hydrogen-Oxygen Flames,” Combust. Flame, 8(4), pp. 249–255. [CrossRef]
Liu, D., and MacFarlane, R., 1983, “Laminar Burning Velocities of Hydrogen-Air and Hydrogen-Air-Steam Flames,” Combust. Flame, 49(1–3), pp. 59–71. [CrossRef]
Koroll, G. W., and Mulpuru, S. R., 1988, “The Effect of Dilution With Steam on the Burning Velocity and Structure of Premixed Hydrogen Flames,” Sym. (Int.) Combust., 21(1), pp. 1811–1819. [CrossRef]
Kwon, O., and Faeth, G., 2001, “Flame/Stretch Interactions of Premixed Hydrogen-Fueled Flames: Measurements and Predictions,” Combust. Flame, 124(4), pp. 590–610. [CrossRef]
Ströhle, J., and Myhrvold, T., 2007, “An Evaluation of Detailed Reaction Mechanisms for Hydrogen Combustion Under Gas Turbine Conditions,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 32(1), pp. 125–135. [CrossRef]
Li, J., Zhao, Z., Kazakov, A., and Dryer, F. L., 2004, “An Updated Comprehensive Kinetic Model of Hydrogen Combustion,” Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 36(10), pp. 566–575. [CrossRef]
Burke, M. P., Chaos, M., Ju, Y., Dryer, F. L., and Klippenstein, S. J., 2012, “Comprehensive H2/O2 Kinetic Model for High-Pressure Combustion,” Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 44(7), pp. 444–474. [CrossRef]
Smith, G. P., Golden, D. M., Frenklach, M., Moriarty, N. W., Eiteneer, B., Goldenberg, M., Bowman, C. T., Hanson, R. K., Song, S., Gardiner, W. C. J., Lissianski, V. V., and Qin, Z., 2000. “GRI 3.0,” Gas Research Institute, Chicago, IL, http://www.me.berkeley.edu/gri_mech/
Lecong, T., and Dagaut, P., 2009, “Oxidation of H2/CO2 Mixtures and Effect of Hydrogen Initial Concentration on the Combustion of CH2 and CH2/CO2 Mixtures: Experiments and Modeling,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 32(1), pp. 427–435. [CrossRef]
Frassoldati, A., Faravelli, T., and Ranzi, E., 2007, “The Ignition, Combustion and Flame Structure of Carbon Monoxide/Hydrogen Mixtures. Note 1: Detailed Kinetic Modeling of Syngas Combustion Also in Presence of Nitrogen Compounds,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 32(15), pp. 3471–3485. [CrossRef]
Göke, S., Terhaar, S., Schimek, S., Katharina, G., and Paschereit, C. O., 2011, “Combustion of Natural Gas, Hydrogen and Bio-Fuels at Ultra-Wet Conditions,” Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2011, Vancouver, Canada, June 6–10, ASME Paper No. GT2011-45696. [CrossRef]
Jaffe, S. M., Larjo, J., and Henberg, R., 1991, “Abel Inversion Using the Fast Fourier Transform,” Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Plasma Chemistry (ISPC'10), Bochum, Germany, August 4–9.
Terhaar, S., Göckeler, K., Schimek, S., Göke, S., and Paschereit, C. O., 2011, “Non-Reacting and Reacting Flow in a Swirl-Stabilized Burner for Ultra-Wet Combustion,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-3584.
Poinsot, T., and Veynante, D., 2005, Theoretical and Numerical Combustion, 2nd ed., R. T. Edwards Inc., Flourtown, PA.
Weller, H. G., Tabora, G., and Jasak, H., 1998, “A Tensorial Approach to Computational Continuum Mechanics Using Object-Oriented Techniques,” Comput. Phys., 12(6), pp. 620–631. [CrossRef]
Smagorinsky, J., 1963, “General Circulation Experiments With the Primitive Equations, I. The Basic Experiment,” Mon. Weather Rev., 91(3), pp. 99–164. [CrossRef]
Krüger, O., Duwig, C., Göke, S., Göckeler, K., Terhaar, S., Paschereit, C. O., and Fuchs, L., 2011, “Numerical Investigations of a Swirl-Stabilized Premixed Flame at Ultra-Wet Conditions,” Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2011, Vancouver, Canada, June 6–10, ASME Paper No. GT2011-45866, pp. 1–12. [CrossRef]
Krüger, O., Duwig, C., Göke, S., Paschereit, C. O., and Fuchs, L., 2011, “Large Eddy Simulation of Ultra-Wet Premixed Flames for Gas Turbine Applications,” Proceedings of the European Combustion Meeting 2011, Cardiff, UK, June 29–July 1, pp. 1–6.
Issa, R. I., 1986, “Solution of the Implicitly Discretized Fluid Flow Equations by Operator-Splitting,” J. Comput. Phys., 62, pp. 40–65. [CrossRef]
Smith, G. P., Luque, J., Park, C., Jeffries, J. B., and Crosley, D. R., 2002, “Low Pressure Flame Determinations of Rate Constants for OH(A) and CH(A) Chemiluminescence,” Combust. Flame, 131(1–2), pp. 59–69. [CrossRef]
Fureby, C., 2007, “Comparison of Flamelet and Finite Rate Chemistry LES for Premixed Turbulent Combustion,” AIAA Paper No. 2007-1413.
Duwig, C., and Fuchs, L., 2008, “Large Eddy Simulation of a H2/N2 Lifted Flame in a Vitiated Co-Flow,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 180, pp. 453–480. [CrossRef]
Duwig, C., Nogenmyr, K.-J., Chan, C.-K., and Dunn, M. J., 2011, “Large Eddy Simulations of a Piloted Lean Premix Jet Flame Using Finite-Rate Chemistry,” Combust. Theory Modell., 15(4), pp. 537–568. [CrossRef]
Selle, L., 2004, “Compressible Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Combustion in Complex Geometry on Unstructured Meshes,” Combust. Flame, 137, pp. 489–505. [CrossRef]
Sen, B. A., and Menon, S., 2010, “Linear Eddy Mixing Based Tabulation and Artificial Neural Networks for Large Eddy Simulations of Turbulent Flames,” Combust. Flame, 157, pp. 62–74. [CrossRef]
Duwig, C., Fuchs, L., Griebel, P., Siewert, P., and Boschek, E., 2007, “Study of a Confined Turbulent Jet: Influence of Combustion and Pressure,” AIAA J., 45(3), pp. 624–639. [CrossRef]
Duwig, C., and Fuchs, L., 2005, “Study of Flame Stabilization in a Swirling Combustor Using a New Flamelet Formulation,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 177, pp. 1485–1510. [CrossRef]
Pitsch, H., and de Lageneste, L., 2003, “Large-Eddy Simulation of Premixed Turbulent Combustion Using a Level-Set Approach,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 29, pp. 2001–2008. [CrossRef]
Giacomazzi, E., and Battaglia, V., 2004, “The Coupling of Turbulence and Chemistry in a Premixed Bluff-Body Flame as Studied by LES,” Combust. Flame, 134(4), pp. 320–335. [CrossRef]
Raman, S., and Pitsch, H., 2007, “A Consistent LES/Filtered-Density Function Formulation for the Simulation of Turbulent Flames With Detailed Chemistry,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 31, pp. 1711–1719. [CrossRef]
Krüger, O., Duwig, C., Göckeler, K., Terhaar, S., Strangfeld, C., Paschereit, C. O., and Fuchs, L., 2011, “Identification of Coherent Structures in a Turbulent Generic Swirl Burner Using Large Eddy Simulations,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-3549.
Edmondson, H., and Heap, M., 1971, “The Burning Velocity of Hydrogen-Air Flames,” Combust. Flame, 16(2), pp. 161–165. [CrossRef]
Smith, G. P., Park, C., and Luque, J., 2005, “A Note on Chemiluminescence in Low-Pressure Hydrogen and Methane-Nitrous Oxide Flames,” Combust. Flame, 140(4), pp. 385–389. [CrossRef]
Ferziger, J. H., and Echekki, T., 1993, “A Simplified Reaction Rate Model and its Application to the Analysis of Premixed Flames,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 89(5–6), pp. 293–315. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic drawing of the computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Laminar burning velocity of hydrogen at 1 atm and Tu = 373 K for different steam levels and reaction mechanisms. Comparison between experimental data (symbols) and model predictions (lines). Experimental data according to Koroll and Mulpuru [14].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Thermal thickness δL0 of a hydrogen/air/steam flame at 1 atm and Tu = 373 K for different steam contents and reaction mechanisms

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Steam content dependence of the laminar burning velocity (top), the thermal thickness (middle), and the flame thickening factor (bottom) at constant outlet temperatures Tb. The inlet temperature was 600 K. Model predictions were assessed with the mechanism of Burke et al. [18]. For comparison purposes calculations with methane (denoted as CH4) are depicted (GRI 3.0-Mech, Tb = 1773 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Burning velocities of 2:1 H2/O2 mixtures at 373 K and ambient pressure with the diluents He, Ar, N2, and H2O. Experimental data (symbols) according to Koroll and Mulpuru [14]. Lines indicate model predictions employing the mechanism of Burke et al. [18].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Molar fraction of OH and OH* as a function of the inverse temperature for three different steam contents Ω. The temperature of the burned gases was kept constant (Tb = 1773 K). Preheating zones for wet and dry cases are also provided.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Molar fraction of HO2 and H2O2 as a function of the inverse temperature for three different steam contents Ω. The temperature of the burned gases was kept constant Tb = 1773 K. Preheating zones for wet and dry cases are also provided.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Molar fraction of NO and NO2 as a function of the inverse temperature for three different steam contents Ω. The temperature of the burned gases was kept constant Tb = 1773 K. Preheating zones for wet and dry cases are also provided.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Mean axial velocity profiles at different streamwise positions (x/Dh = 0.5;1.0;2.0) at dry and wet conditions. Profiles are normalized by the contraction exit velocity references u0. (a) Dry case (Ω = 0.0, Φ = 0.45, Tu = 293 K). (b) Wet case (Ω = 0.5, Φ = 0.9, Tu = 600 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Slices in streamwise direction showing the instantaneous temperature fields for the dry (Ω = 0.0, Φ = 0.45, Tu = 293 K) and the wet case (Ω = 0.5, Φ = 0.9, Tu = 600 K)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of the LES (top) with experimental OH* chemiluminescence measurements (bottom) for the dry case (Ω = 0.0, Φ = 0.45, Tu = 293 K). Top: Slice of the normalized OH* mass fraction, Bottom: Processed Abel inversion of OH* recordings. For better comparison, contour lines of the OH* concentration (mass fraction) of the LES are superimposed.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of the LES (top) with experimental OH* chemiluminescence measurements (bottom) for the wet case (Ω = 0.5, Φ = 0.9, Tu = 600 K). Top: slice of the normalized OH* mass fraction, Bottom: processed Abel inversion of OH* recordings. For better comparison, contour lines of the OH* concentration (mass fraction) of the LES are superimposed.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In