TECHNICAL PAPERS: Gas Turbines: Combustion and Fuel

Phase-Resolved Laser Diagnostic Measurements of a Downscaled, Fuel-Staged Gas Turbine Combustor at Elevated Pressure and Comparison to LES Predictions

[+] Author and Article Information
Klaus Peter Geigle

 Institute of Combustion Technology, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Pfaffenwaldring 38-40, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germanyklauspeter.geigle@dlr.de

Wolfgang Meier, Manfred Aigner

 Institute of Combustion Technology, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Pfaffenwaldring 38-40, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany

Chris Willert, Marc Jarius

 Institute of Propulsion Technology, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Linder Höhe, D-51147 Köln, Germany

Patrick Schmitt

 CERFACS, 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis, F-31057 Toulouse Cedex 1, France

Bruno Schuermans

 ALSTOM Power Ltd., Brown Boveri Str. 7, CH-5401 Baden, Switzerland

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 129(3), 680-687 (Sep 19, 2006) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2718222 History: Received April 21, 2006; Revised September 19, 2006

A technical gas turbine combustor has been studied in detail with optical diagnostics for validation of large-eddy simulations (LES). OH* chemiluminescence, OH laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) and particle image velocimetry (PIV) have been applied to stable and pulsating flames up to 8 bar. The combination of all results yielded good insight into the combustion process with this type of burner and forms a database that was used for the validation of complex numerical combustion simulations. LES, including radiation, convective cooling, and air cooling, were combined with a reduced chemical scheme that predicts NOx emissions. Good agreement of the calculated flame position and shape with experimental data was found.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Detailed view on fluctuation of OH* in phase averaged images on variation of burner exit velocity, left: 5bar flame from Figs. 7, right: 5bar flame shown in Fig. 9.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Burner and optical setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

NOx value dependency on adiabatic flame temperature for different pressures and staging (left) and on staging keeping the other parameters constant (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

NOx value dependency on burner exit velocity (left, different staging, constant T(ad)), and pressure (right, constant α).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Averaged flow field measured with PIV for a stable flame at 3bar, intermediate α and corresponding recirculation zones in the flame.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

PIV averages for pulsating flames at low α and 3bar, 5bar, and 8bar (left to right), velocity scale as before; a crack in the window (masked), and increasing window pollution is visible for the 5bar, and 8bar flames.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

PIV single shots for a nonpulsating (top, 3bar, intermediate α) and a pulsating flame (bottom, 3bar, same T(ad), low α). Each flame snapshot is represented by velocity magnitude (top) and axial component (bottom). In the pulsating case, a selection of strongly different images is shown while the stable flame is visualised as sequence.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

OH* and OH LIF measurements of strongly pulsating flame at 5bar, T(ad)=T(ref), α=0, v=v(ref) at 245Hz (left) and comparison to the stable flame at intermediate α (right). The approximate burner geometry, relative to the flame shown in the right column, is indicated in one extra column. Note that a different window section is chosen for the tree bottom rows.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Full image integrated intensities for the flame shown in Fig. 7. The OH* line represents a full 3D integration, while the OH LIF trend describes only a 2D integrated intensity.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

OH* and OH LIF measurements of an acoustically pulsating flame, parameters as for flame in Fig. 7, but 30% higher burner exit velocity, 300Hz.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

OH* and OH LIF trends on variation of burner exit velocity, 5bar. Comparison for intermediate low α, lower flame temperature (left) to α=0, higher temperature (right). Each column contains lower (left) and higher velocity (right) images.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Experiment (left, flame shown in Fig. 7) and model results (right) match well. If assuming the walls to be adiabatic and without reflective combustion chamber outlet (middle top) or isothermal nonreflective (middle bottom), the agreement is insufficient, yet better for the isothermal case. For all plots, the intensity scale is linear; contour lines indicate same values for all computations.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Left side: OH* and OH LIF trends on variation of staging, 5bar, T(ad) and v(exit)=const, left to right: Increased staging. Right side: Trends on variation of pressure at constant Tad and staging.



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