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

Assessment of Scale-Resolved Computational Fluid Dynamics Methods for the Investigation of Lean Burn Spray Flames

[+] Author and Article Information
Stefano Puggelli

Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Florence,
via Santa Marta 3,
Florence 50139, Italy
e-mail: stefano.puggelli@htc.de.unifi.it

Davide Bertini

Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Florence,
via Santa Marta 3,
Florence 50139, Italy
e-mail: davide.bertini@htc.de.unifi.it

Lorenzo Mazzei

Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Florence,
via Santa Marta 3,
Florence 50139, Italy
e-mail: lorenzo.mazzei@htc.de.unifi.it

Antonio Andreini

Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Florence,
via Santa Marta 3,
Florence 50139, Italy
e-mail: antonio.andreini@htc.de.unifi.it

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 June 20, 2016; final manuscript received June 22, 2016; published online September 13, 2016. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(2), 021501 (Sep 13, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: GTP-16-1237; doi: 10.1115/1.4034194 History: Received June 20, 2016; Revised June 22, 2016

Incoming standards on NOx emissions are motivating many aero-engines manufacturers to adopt the lean burn combustion concept. However, several technological issues have to be faced in this transition, among which limited availability of air for cooling purpose and thermoacoustics phenomena. In this scenario, standard numerical design tools are not often capable of characterizing such devices. Thus, considering also the difficulties of experimental investigations in a highly pressurized and reactive environment, unsteady scale-resolved CFD methods are required to correctly understand the combustor performances. In this work, a set of scale-resolved simulations have been carried out on the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) generic single-sector combustor spray flame for which measurements both in nonreactive and reactive test conditions are available. Exploiting a two-phase Eulerian–Lagrangian approach combined with a flamelet generated manifold (FGM) combustion model, LES simulations have been performed in order to assess the potential improvements with respect to steady-state solutions. Additional comparisons have also been accomplished with scale-adaptive simulation (SAS) calculations based on eddy dissipation combustion model (EDM). The comparison with experimental results shows that the chosen unsteady strategies lead to a more physical description of reactive processes with respect to Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulations. FGM model showed some limitations in reproducing the partially premixed nature of the flame, whereas SAS–EDM proved to be a robust modeling strategy within an industrial perspective. A new set of spray boundary conditions for liquid injection is also proposed whose reliability is proved through a detailed comparison against experimental data.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

DLR Generic Single Sector Combustor with details of the swirler geometry [15]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experimental results for reactive test conditions: flame visualization (a) and temperature map from OH-PLIF (b). White line indicates swirler exit plane [15].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational grids: coarse (top and bottom left) and fine (bottom right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Axial velocity contours obtained with several resolutions of the turbulent field and mesh sizes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of radial velocity profiles at 5 mm downstream of the fuel injection with several turbulence modeling approaches and mesh sizes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of radial velocity profiles at 10 mm downstream of the fuel injection with several turbulence modeling approaches and mesh sizes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Contour of Pope's criterion with SAS and LES with different mesh sizes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Temperature contours obtained with FGM and EDM combustion models with several resolutions of the turbulent field and mesh sizes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Radial temperature profiles obtained with FGM and EDM combustion models with several turbulence modeling approaches and mesh sizes at different axial locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Flame index (Θ) distribution obtained with FGM–LES model on the fine mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Radial profiles of SMD at different axial locations with injection parameters from Ref. [31] and after the new settings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Radial profiles of axial, radial, and tangential velocities at different axial locations with injection parameters from Ref. [31] and after the new settings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Temperature distribution obtained with injection parameters from Ref. [31] and after the new settings

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