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

Large Eddy Simulation of a Pressurized, Partially Premixed Swirling Flame With Finite-Rate Chemistry

[+] Author and Article Information
Sandeep Jella

Siemens Canada Limited,
Montreal, QC H9P 1A5, Canada
e-mail: sandeep.jella@siemens.com

Pierre Gauthier, Gilles Bourque

Siemens Canada Limited,
Montreal, QC H9P 1A5, Canada

Jeffrey Bergthorson

McGill University,
Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada

Ghenadie Bulat, Jim Rogerson, Suresh Sadasivuni

Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery,
Lincoln LN5 7FD, UK

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 23, 2017; final manuscript received March 29, 2018; published online July 10, 2018. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 140(11), 111505 (Jul 10, 2018) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-17-1387; doi: 10.1115/1.4040007 History: Received July 23, 2017; Revised March 29, 2018

Finite-rate chemical effects at gas turbine conditions lead to incomplete combustion and well-known emissions issues. Although a thin flame front is preserved on an average, the instantaneous flame location can vary in thickness and location due to heat losses or imperfect mixing. Postflame phenomena (slow CO oxidation or thermal NO production) can be expected to be significantly influenced by turbulent eddy structures. Since typical gas turbine combustor calculations require insight into flame stabilization as well as pollutant formation, combustion models are required to be sensitive to the instantaneous and local flow conditions. Unfortunately, few models that adequately describe turbulence–chemistry interactions are tractable in the industrial context. A widely used model capable of employing finite-rate chemistry is the eddy dissipation concept (EDC) model of Magnussen. Its application in large eddy simulations (LES) is problematic mainly due to a strong sensitivity to the model constants, which were based on an isotropic cascade analysis in the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) context. The objectives of this paper are: (i) to formulate the EDC cascade idea in the context of LES; and (ii) to validate the model using experimental data consisting of velocity (particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements) and major species (1D Raman measurements), at four axial locations in the near-burner region of a Siemens SGT-100 industrial gas turbine combustor.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Bulat, G. , Jones, W. , and Marquis, A. , 2014, “ NO and CO Formation in an Industrial Gas-Turbine Combustion Chamber Using LES With the Eulerian Sub-Grid PDF Method,” Combust. Flame, 161(7), pp. 1804–1825. [CrossRef]
Haworth, D. , 2010, “ Progress in Probability Density Function Methods for Turbulent Reacting Flows,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 36(2), pp. 168–259. [CrossRef]
Jaravel, T. , Riber, E. , Cuenot, B. , and Bulat, G. , 2017, “ Large Eddy Simulation of an Industrial Gas Turbine Combustor Using Reduced Chemistry With Accurate Pollutant Prediction,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 36(3), 3817–3825.
Fureby, C. , 2009, “ LES of a Multi-Burner Annular Gas Turbine Combustor,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 84(3), pp. 543–564. [CrossRef]
Sabelnikov, V. , and Fureby, C. , 2013, “ LES Combustion Modeling for High Re Flames Using a Multi-Phase Analogy,” Combust. Flame, 160(1), pp. 83–96. [CrossRef]
Giacomazzi, E. , Battaglia, V. , and Bruno, C. , 2004, “ The Coupling of Turbulence and Chemistry in a Premixed Bluff-Body Flame as Studied by Les,” Combust. Flame, 138(4), pp. 320–335. [CrossRef]
Panjwani, B. , Ertesvåg, I. , Rian, K. , and Gruber, A. , 2010, “ Subgrid Combustion Modeling for Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Combustion Using Eddy Dissipation Concept,” Fifth European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 14–17.
Lysenko, D. A. , Ertesvåg, I. S. , and Rian, K. E. , 2014, “ Numerical Simulations of the Sandia Flame D Using the Eddy Dissipation Concept,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 93(4), pp. 665–687. [CrossRef]
Kjäldman, L. , Brink, A. , and Hupa, M. , 2000, “ Micro Mixing Time in the Eddy Dissipation Concept,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 154(1), pp. 207–227. [CrossRef]
De, A. , and Acharya, S. , 2009, “ Large Eddy Simulation of Premixed Combustion With a Thickened-Flame Approach,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 131(6), p. 061501. [CrossRef]
Parente, A. , Malik, M. R. , Contino, F. , Cuoci, A. , and Dally, B. B. , 2016, “ Extension of the Eddy Dissipation Concept for Turbulence/Chemistry Interactions to Mild Combustion,” Fuel, 163, pp. 98–111. [CrossRef]
Chomiak, J. , and Karlsson, A. , 1996, “ Flame Liftoff in Diesel Sprays,” Symposium (International) on Combustion, Vol. 26, pp. 2557–2564.
Magnussen, B. F. , 2005, “ The Eddy Dissipation Concept-a Bridge Between Science and Technology,” ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Combustion, pp. 21–24.
Haworth, D. , 2000, “ A Probability Density Function/Flamelet Method for Partially Premixed Turbulent Combustion,” Summer Program, pp. 145–156.
Fox, R. O. , and Stiles, H. L. , 2003, Computational Models for Turbulent Reacting Flows, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [CrossRef]
De, A. , Oldenhof, E. , Sathiah, P. , and Roekaerts, D. , 2011, “ Numerical Simulation of Delft-Jet-in-Hot-Coflow (DJHC) Flames Using the Eddy Dissipation Concept Model for Turbulence-Chemistry Interaction,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 87(4), pp. 537–567. [CrossRef]
Fureby, C. , 2012, “ A Comparative Study of Flamelet and Finite Rate Chemistry LES for a Swirl Stabilized Flame,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 134(4), p. 041503. [CrossRef]
Poinsot, T. , and Veynante, D. , 2012, Theoretical and Numerical Combustion, 3rd ed., France.
Ertesväg, I. S. , and Magnussen, B. F. , 2007, “ The Eddy Dissipation Turbulence Energy Cascade Model,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 159(1), pp. 213–235. [CrossRef]
Kim, S.-E. , 2004, “ Large Eddy Simulation Using an Unstructured Mesh Based Finite-Volume Solver,” AIAA Paper No. 2004-2548.
Stopper, U. , Meier, W. , Sadanandan, R. , Stöhr, M. , Aigner, M. , and Bulat, G. , 2013, “ Experimental Study of Industrial Gas Turbine Flames Including Quantification of Pressure Influence on Flow Field, Fuel/Air Premixing and Flame Shape,” Combust. Flame, 160(10), pp. 2103–2118. [CrossRef]
Bulat, G. , Fedina, E. , Fureby, C. , Meier, W. , and Stopper, U. , 2014, “ Reacting Flow in an Industrial Gas Turbine Combustor: LES and Experimental Analysis,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 35(3), pp. 3175–3183. [CrossRef]
Sadasivuni, S. K. , Bulat, G. , Sanderson, V. , and Swaminathan, N. , 2012, “ Application of Scalar Dissipation Rate Model to Siemens DLE Combustors,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68483.
Celik, I. , Cehreli, Z. , and Yavuz, I. , 2005, “ Index of Resolution Quality for Large Eddy Simulations,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 127(5), pp. 949–958. [CrossRef]
Sánchez, A. , Lépinette, A. , Bollig, M. , Liñán, A. , and Lázaro, B. , 2000, “ The Reduced Kinetic Description of Lean Premixed Combustion,” Combust. Flame, 123(4), pp. 436–464. [CrossRef]
Zhou, B. , 2015, “ Advanced Laser-Based Multi-Scalar Imaging for Flame Structure Visualization Towards a Deepened Understanding of Premixed Turbulent Combustion,” Ph.D. thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Jiang, L.-Y. , and Campbell, I. , 2008, “ Reynolds Analogy in Combustor Modeling,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 51(5–6), pp. 1251–1263. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The SGT-100 experimental rig schematic

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparisons with experiment—reactant mass fractions (top row: MEAN, bottom row: RMS)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Qualitative flame shape

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Pollutant formation—CO and thermal NO

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparisons with experiment - temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparisons with experiment—product mass fractions (top row: MEAN, bottom row: RMS)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Time-averaged fields

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Chemical Source Terms and Strain Rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparisons with experiment - velocity field (top row: MEAN, bottom row: RMS)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Mesh distribution on 1/2 section of domain—darker areas are more refined

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparisons with the RANS EDC at location 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

OH and CO Karlovitz numbers




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

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