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

A Hybrid Semi-empirical Model for Lean Blow-Out Limit Predictions of Aero-engine Combustors

[+] Author and Article Information
Bin Hu

Institute of Engineering Thermophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
No. 11 Beisihuan West Road,
Haidian District,
Beijing 100190, China
e-mail: hubin@iet.cn

Yong Huang

School of Energy and Power Engineering,
Beihang University,
No. 37 Xueyuan Road,
Haidian District,
Beijing 100191, China
e-mail: yhuang@buaa.edu.cn

Jianzhong Xu

Institute of Engineering Thermophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
No. 11 Beisihuan West Road,
Haidian District,
Beijing 100190, China
e-mail: xjz@iet.cn

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 July 18, 2014; final manuscript received July 24, 2014; published online September 30, 2014. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 137(3), 031502 (Sep 30, 2014) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-14-1407; doi: 10.1115/1.4028394 History: Received July 18, 2014; Revised July 24, 2014

According to the Lefebvre's model and flame volume (FV) concept, an FV model about lean blow-out (LBO) was proposed by authors in early study. On the other hand, due to the model parameter (FV) contained in FV model is obtained based on the experimental data, FV model could only be used in LBO analysis instead of prediction. In view of this, a hybrid FV model is proposed that combines the FV model with numerical simulation in the present study. The model parameters contained in the FV model are all estimated from the simulated nonreacting flows. Comparing with the experimental data for 11 combustors, the maximum and average uncertainties of hybrid FV model are ±16% and ±10%.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Comparison of the flame zone obtained by experimental image and the fuel concentration contour (cutoff by flammable limit) obtained by numerical simulation without combustion [32]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Origination of the present research approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic diagram of LBO test rig

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Combustor configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Computational domain and numerical boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Various views of computational grids

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Computational domain and swirler configuration. (a) Computational domain of the model combustor. (b) Configuration of the swirler [34].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of the computational results operated by author with experimental and computational results operated by Davoudzadeh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Values of Vf,n under different mf

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Locations of the characteristic points in the symmetry plane of the combustor (grayed by axial velocity)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of β and βf,n,c

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

A 3D depiction of Vf,n,c

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of qLBO and βf,n,c

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Schematic diagram of the relationship between the movement of vortex center and qLBO

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of qLBO and qLBO,predict




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