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

Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes and Large-Eddy Simulation Investigation of Lean Premixed Gas Turbine Combustor

[+] Author and Article Information
Sunil Patil

ANSYS, Inc.,
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
e-mail: Sunil.Patil@ansys.com

Federico Montanari

ANSYS, Inc.,
Lebanon, NH 03766
e-mail: Federico.Montanari@ansys.com

Contributed by the Aircraft Engine Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 26, 2014; final manuscript received May 6, 2015; published online June 23, 2015. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 137(12), 121506 (Jun 23, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: GTP-14-1440; doi: 10.1115/1.4030793 History: Received July 26, 2014

Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) and large-eddy simulations (LES) of a Siemens scaled combustor are compared against comprehensive experimental data. The steady RANS simulation modeled one quarter of the geometry with 8 M polyhedral cells using the shear stress transport (SST) k-ω model. Unsteady LES were performed on the quarter geometry (90 deg, 8 M cells) as well as the full geometry (360 deg, 32 M cells) using the wall-adapting local eddy-viscosity (WALE) subgrid model and dynamic evaluation of model coefficients. Aside from the turbulence model, all other models are identical for the RANS and LES. Combustion was modeled with the flamelet generated manifold (FGM) model, which represents the thermochemistry by mixture fraction and reaction progress. RANS simulations are performed using Zimont and Peters turbulent flame-speed (TFS) expressions with default model constants, as well as the kinetic rate from the FGM. The flame-speed stalls near the wall with the TFS models, predicting a flame brush that extends to the combustor outlet, which is inconsistent with measurements. The FGM kinetic source model shows improved flame position predictions. The LES predictions of mean and rms axial velocity, mixture fraction, and temperature do not show improvement over the RANS. All three simulations overpredict the turbulent mixing in the inner recirculation zone, causing flatter profiles than measurements. This overmixing is exacerbated in the 90 deg case. The experiments show evidence of heat loss, and the adiabatic simulations presented here might be improved by including wall heat-loss and radiation effects.

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

References

Brum, R. , and Samuelsen, G. , 1987, “Two-Component Laser Anemometry Measurements of Non-Reacting and Reacting Complex Flows in a Swirl-Stabilized Model Combustor,” Exp. Fluids, 5(2), pp. 95–102. [CrossRef]
Bornstein, J. , and Escudier, M. , 1982, “LDA Measurements Within a Vortex Breakdown Bubble,” International Symposium on Applications of Laser-Doppler Anemometry to Fluid Mechanics, Lisbon, July 5–7, Paper No. 10.3.
Vu, B. , and Gouldin, F. , 1982, “Flow Measurements in a Model Swirl Combustor,” AIAA J., 20(5), pp. 642–651. [CrossRef]
Bowman, C. , Edwards, C. , Gerdes, J. , Pitsch, H. , and Printz, F. , 2002, “Active Control of Combustion Instability in Air-Breathing Propulsion Systems,” Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Final Technical Report No. NAG 2-1219.
Li, G. , 2004, “Emissions, Combustion Dynamics, and Control of Multiple Swirl Combustor,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Patil, S. , Abraham, S. , Tafti, D. , Ekkad, S. , Kim, Y. , Dutta, P. , Moon, H.-K. , and Srinivasan, R. , 2011, “Experimental and Numerical Investigation Convective Heat Transfer in a Gas Turbine Can Combustor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(1), p. 011028. [CrossRef]
Patil, S. , Sedalor, T. , Tafti, D. , Ekkad, S. , Kim, Y. , Dutta, P. , Moon, H.-K. , and Srinivasan, R. , 2011, “Study of Flow and Convective Heat Transfer in a Simulated Scaled Up Low Emission Annular Combustor,” ASME J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl., 3(3), p. 031010. [CrossRef]
Lückerath, R. , Lammel, O. , Stohr, M. , Boxx, I. , Stopper, U. , Meier, W. , Janus, B. , and Wegner, B. , 2011, “Experimental Investigation of Flame Stabilization of Gas Turbine Combustor,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45790.
Sloan, D. , Smoot, L. , and Smith, P. , 1986, “Modeling of Swirl in Turbulent Flow Systems,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 12(3), pp. 163–250. [CrossRef]
Hogg, S. , and Leschziner, M. , 1989, “Computation of Highly Swirling Flows With a Reynolds Stress Turbulence Model,” AIAA J., 27(1), pp. 57–63. [CrossRef]
Jones, W. , and Pascau, A. , 1989, “Calculation of Confined Swirling Flows With a Second Moment Closure,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 111(3), pp. 248–255. [CrossRef]
Sharif, M. , and Wong, Y. , 1995, “Evaluation of the Performance of Three Turbulence Closure Models in the Prediction of Confined Swirling Flows,” Comput. Fluids, 24(1), pp. 81–100. [CrossRef]
Davoudzadeh, F. , and Liu, N.-S. , 2004, “Numerical Prediction of Non-Reacting and Reacting Flow in a Model Gas Turbine Combustor,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-53496.
Wegner, B. , Gruschka, U. , Krebs, W. , Egorov, Y. , Forkel, H. , Ferreira, J. , and Aschmoneit, K. , 2010, “CFD Prediction of Partload CO Emissions Using a Two-Timescale Combustion Model,” ASME Paper No. GT2010-22241.
Grinstein, F. , Young, T. , Gutmark, E. , Li, G. , Hsiao, G. , and Mongia, H. , 2002, “Flow Dynamics in a Swirl Combustor,” J. Turbul., 3(2002), pp. 27–29.
Grinstein, F. , and Furby, C. , 2005, “LES Studies of the Flow in a Swirl Gas Combustor,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 30(2), pp. 1791–1798. [CrossRef]
James, S. , 2008, “Towards Improved Prediction of Aero-Engine Combustor Performance Using Large Eddy Simulations,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50199.
Patil, S. , and Tafti, D. , 2012, “Wall Modeled Large Eddy Simulations of Complex High Reynolds Number Flows With Synthetic Inlet Turbulence,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 33(1), pp. 9–21. [CrossRef]
Patil, S. , and Tafti, D. , 2012, “Large Eddy Simulation of Flow and Convective Heat Transfer in a Gas Turbine Combustor With Synthetic Inlet Turbulence,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines and Power, 134(7), p. 071503. [CrossRef]
Lückerath, R. , 2010, “Flame Stabilization Mechanisms for Robust Burner Systems With Increased Fuel Flexibility—High Pressure Tests,” COORETEC-turbo 2.1.3 Final Report.
ANSYS, 2012, “ ansys fluent Theory Guide,” Release No. 14.5, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Schmidl, B. , 2011, “Validation of Advanced CFD-Combustion Models for Modern Lean Premixed Burners,” Diploma thesis, University of Duisberg, Essen, Germany.
Goldin, G. , Ren, Z. , and Forkel, H. , 2012, “Modeling CO With Flamelet-Generated Manifolds. Part 1: Flamelet Configuration,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-69528.
Goldin, G. , Ren, Z. , Forkel, H. , Lu, L. , Tangirala, V. , and Karim, H. , 2012, “Modeling CO With Flamelet-Generated Manifolds: Part 2—Application,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-69546.
Kazakov, A. , and Frenklach, M. , “Reduced Reaction Sets based on GRI-Mech 1.2,” University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, http://www.me.berkeley.edu/drm/

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Photo of DLR rig with Siemens gas turbine combustor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Photo of burner showing eight main swirlers and central pilot swirler with conical nozzle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Image showing fuel pipes (left side) and the swirl housing (right side)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Contours of reaction progress for (a) Peters TFS, (b) Zimont TFS, and (c) FGM kinetic rate mean reaction-progress source term closure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Plot of mean temperature on centerline: experiment (red dots), RANS TFM kinetic model (solid line), RANS Peters TFS (dashed line), and RANS Zimont TFS (dotted line)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Plot of mean axial velocity on centerline: see Fig. 5 for symbol definitions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Contours of instantaneous temperature (K) for the 90 deg sector (top) and the full 360 deg LES (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Contours of instantaneous velocity magnitude (m/s) at one time instant for the full 360 deg LES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) Mean axial velocity at y = 0 mm, (b) mean axial velocity at y = 20 mm, and (c) mean axial velocity at y = 39 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

(a) RMS axial velocity at y = 0 mm and (b) RMS axial velocity at y = 39 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

(a) Mean mixture fraction at y = 0 mm, (b) mean mixture fraction at y = 20 mm, (c) mean mixture fraction at y = 34 mm, and (d) mean mixture fraction at y = 39 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Mean mixture fraction for the full 360 deg LES. Values above 0.05 have been clipped to 0.05.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

(a) Mean temperature at y = 0 mm (axis), (b) mean temperature at y = 20 mm, (c) mean temperature at y = 34 mm, and (d) mean temperature at y = 39 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Experimental instantaneous temperature versus mixture fraction scatter shots in the inner recirculation zone

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

(a) RMS temperature at y = 0 mm and (b) RMS temperature at y = 39 mm

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