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

Large Eddy Simulation of a Bluff-Body–Stabilized Flame With Close-Coupled Liquid Fuel Injection

[+] Author and Article Information
Andrew G. Smith

e-mail: andrew.g.smith@gatech.edu

Suresh Menon

Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30322

Baris A. Sen

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Engines,
East Hartford, CT 06108

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received August 15, 2013; final manuscript received September 10, 2013; published online November 14, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 136(3), 031505 (Nov 14, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: GTP-13-1308; doi: 10.1115/1.4025834 History: Received August 15, 2013; Revised September 10, 2013

Large eddy simulations (LES) are performed of a bluff-body–stabilized flame with discrete liquid fuel injectors located just upstream of the bluff-body trailing edge in a so-called “close-coupled” configuration. Nonreacting and reacting simulations of the Georgia Tech single flameholder test rig [Cross et al., 2010, “Dynamics of Non-premixed Bluff Body-Stabilized Flames in Heated Air Flow,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT2010-23059] are conducted using an Eulerian–Lagrangian approach with a finite volume solver. Experimental data is first used to characterize the boundary conditions under nonreacting conditions before simulating reacting test cases at two different fuel mass flow rates. The two fuel mass flow rates not only result in different global equivalence ratios but different spatial distributions of fuel, especially in the near-field wake of the bluff body. The differing spatial distribution of fuel results in two distinct flame dynamics; at the high-fuel flow rate, large-scale sinusoidal Bérnard/von-Kármán (BVK) oscillations are observed, whereas a symmetric flame is seen under the low-fuel flow rate condition.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Normalized resolved turbulent kinetic energy in the shear layer at x = D for nonreacting LES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Single flameholder test rig. (a) View of entire computational domain with an isosurface of temperature showing flame structure typical of the ϕglobal ≈ 0.5 operating condition. (b) Detail view of bluff body showing the locations of discrete staggered fuel injectors.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of experimental spray penetration (left) [2] with simulations (right). Note that the high fuel-flow rate of the experimental image is slightly different than the simulation. (a) ϕglobal ≈ 0.95. (b) ϕglobal ≈ 0.5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Mean axial velocity in the vertical and spanwise directions at x = −12.3D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Spanwise and time-averaged quantities in the shear layers at several axial locations: (−•−) ϕglobal ≈ 0.95; (−▴−) ϕglobal ≈ 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mean axial velocity on the centerline at several locations near the bluff-body trailing edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of experimental flame image sequence [2] with LES (spanwise-averaged CO and CO2 mass fraction overlayed on heat release rate) at two different global equivalence ratios: (a) ϕglobal ≈ 0.95; (b) ϕglobal ≈ 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of experimental time-averaged CH* [2] with simulation time-averaged heat release rate: (a) ϕglobal ≈ 0.95; (b) ϕglobal ≈ 0.5




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