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

Large Eddy Simulation of a Bluff-Body–Stabilized Flame With Close-Coupled Liquid Fuel Injection

[+] Author and Article Information
Andrew G. Smith

e-mail: andrew.g.smith@gatech.edu

Suresh Menon

Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30322

Baris A. Sen

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Engines,
East Hartford, CT 06108

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 August 15, 2013; final manuscript received September 10, 2013; published online November 14, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 136(3), 031505 (Nov 14, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: GTP-13-1308; doi: 10.1115/1.4025834 History: Received August 15, 2013; Revised September 10, 2013

Large eddy simulations (LES) are performed of a bluff-body–stabilized flame with discrete liquid fuel injectors located just upstream of the bluff-body trailing edge in a so-called “close-coupled” configuration. Nonreacting and reacting simulations of the Georgia Tech single flameholder test rig [Cross et al., 2010, “Dynamics of Non-premixed Bluff Body-Stabilized Flames in Heated Air Flow,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. GT2010-23059] are conducted using an Eulerian–Lagrangian approach with a finite volume solver. Experimental data is first used to characterize the boundary conditions under nonreacting conditions before simulating reacting test cases at two different fuel mass flow rates. The two fuel mass flow rates not only result in different global equivalence ratios but different spatial distributions of fuel, especially in the near-field wake of the bluff body. The differing spatial distribution of fuel results in two distinct flame dynamics; at the high-fuel flow rate, large-scale sinusoidal Bérnard/von-Kármán (BVK) oscillations are observed, whereas a symmetric flame is seen under the low-fuel flow rate condition.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Lovett, J. A., Brogan, T. P., Philippona, D. S., Keil, B. V., and Thompson, T. V., 2004, “Development Needs for Advanced Afterburner Designs,” 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, FL, July 11–14, AIAA Paper No. 2004-4192. [CrossRef]
Cross, C., Fricker, A., Shcherbik, D., Lubarsky, E., Zinn, B. T., and Lovett, J. A., 2010, “Dynamics of Non-Premixed Bluff Body-Stabilized Flames in Heated Air Flow,” ASME Paper No. GT2010-23059. [CrossRef]
Lovett, J. A., Cross, C., Lubarsky, E., and Zinn, B. T., 2011, “A Review of Mechanisms Controlling Bluff-Body Stabilized Flames With Closely-Coupled Fuel Injection,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-46676. [CrossRef]
Klusmeyer, A., Cross, C., Lubarsky, E., Bibik, O., Shcherbik, D., and Zinn, B. T., 2013, “Prediction of Blow-Offs of Bluff Body Stabilized Flames Utilizing Close-Coupled Injection of Liquid Fuels,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 135(1), p. 011504. [CrossRef]
Lovett, J. A., Ahmed, K. A., Klusmeyer, A., Smith, A. G., Lubarsky, E., Menon, S., and Zinn, B. T., 2013, “On the Influence of Fuel Distribution on the Flame Structure of Bluff-Body Stabilized Flames,” ASME Paper No. GT2013-95997. [CrossRef]
Génin, F., and Menon, S., 2010, “Studies of Shock/Turbulent Shear Layer Interaction Using Large-Eddy Simulation,” Comput. Fluids, 39, pp. 800–819. [CrossRef]
Kim, W.-W., and Menon, S., 1999, “An Unsteady Incompressible Navier-Stokes Solver for Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flows,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 31, pp. 983–1017. [CrossRef]
Fureby, C., and Möller, S.-I., 1995, “Large Eddy Simulation of Reacting Flows Applied to Bluff Body Stabilized Flames,” AIAA J., 33(12), pp. 2339–2347. [CrossRef]
Goldin, G., 2005, “Evaluation of LES Subgrid Reaction Models in a Lifted Flame,” 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, January 10–13, AIAA Paper No. 2005-555. [CrossRef]
Fureby, C., 2007, “Comparison of Flamelet and Finite Rate Chemistry LES for Premixed Turbulent Combustion,” 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, January 8–11, AIAA Paper No. 2007-1413. [CrossRef]
Berglund, M., Fedina, E., Fureby, C., Tegnér, J., and Sabelnikov, V., 2010, “Finite Rate Chemistry Large-Eddy Simulation of Self-Ignition in a Supersonic Combustion Ramjet,” AIAA J., 48(3), pp. 540–550. [CrossRef]
Strakey, P. A., and Eggenspieler, G., 2010, “Development and Validation of a Thickened Flame Modeling Approach for Large Eddy Simulation of Premixed Combustion,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 132(7), p. 071501. [CrossRef]
Duwig, C., Nogenmy, K.-J., Chan, C., and Dunn, M. J., 2011, “Large Eddy Simulations of a Piloted Lean Premix Jet Flame Using Finite-Rate Chemistry,” Combust. Theory Model., 15(4), pp. 537–568. [CrossRef]
Gokulakrishnan, P., Bikkani, R., Klassen, M. S., Roby, R. J., and Kiel, B., 2009. “Influence of Turbulence-Chemistry Interaction in Blow-Out Predictions of Bluff-Body Stabilized Flames,” 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 5–8, AIAA Paper No. 2009-1179. [CrossRef]
Porumbel, I., and Menon, S., 2006, “Large Eddy Simulation of Bluff Body Stabilized Premixed Flame,” 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 9–12, AIAA Paper No. 2006-152. [CrossRef]
Crowe, C., Sommerfeld, M., and Tsuji, Y., 1997, Multiphase Flows With Droplets and Particles, CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Yuen, M. C., and Chen, L. W., 1976, “On Drag of Evaporating Liquid Drops,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 14, pp. 147–154. [CrossRef]
Abramzon, B., and Sirignano, W. A., 1989, “Droplet Vaporization Model for Spray Combustion Calculations,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 32(9), pp. 1605–1618. [CrossRef]
Kolaitis, D. I., and Founti, M. A., 2006, “A Comparative Study of Numerical Models for Eulerian-Lagrangian Simulations of Turbulent Evaporating Sprays,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 27, pp. 424–435. [CrossRef]
Faeth, G., 1987, “Mixing, Transport, Combustion in Sprays,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 13(4), pp. 293–345. [CrossRef]
Patel, N., Kirtas, M., Sankaran, V., and Menon, S., 2007, “Simulation of Spray Combustion in a Lean-Direct Injection Combustor,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 31, pp. 2327–2334. [CrossRef]
Madabhushi, R. K., 2003, “A Model for Numerical Simulation of Breakup of a Liquid Jet in Crossflow,” Atomization Sprays, 13, pp. 413–424. [CrossRef]
Madabhushi, R. K., Leong, M. Y., and Hautman, D. J., 2004, “Simulation of the Break-Up of a Liquid Jet in Crossflow at Atmospheric Conditions,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-54093. [CrossRef]
Brown, C. T., McDonell, V. G., and Kiel, B. V., 2006, “Test Bed for Characterization of Liquid Jet Injection Phenomenon at Augmentor Conditions,” 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Sacramento, CA, July 9–12, AIAA Paper No. 2006-4569. [CrossRef]
Reitz, R. D., 1987, “Modeling Atomization Processes in High-Pressure Vaporizing Sprays,” Atomization Spray Technol., 3, pp. 309–337.
Liu, A. B., Mather, D., and Reitz, R. D., 1993, “Modeling the Effects of Drop Drag and Breakup on Fuel Sprays,” SAE Paper No. 930072. [CrossRef]
Khosla, S., and Crocker, D. S., 2004, “CFD Modeling of the Atomization of Plain Liquid Jets in Cross Flow for Gas Turbine Applications,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-54269. [CrossRef]
Franzelli, B., Riber, E., Sanjosé, M., and Poinsot, T., 2010, “A Two-Step Chemical Scheme for Kerosene-Air Premixed Flames,” Combust. Flame, 157(7), pp. 1364–1373. [CrossRef]
Hannebique, G., Sierra, P., Riber, E., and Cuenot, B., 2012, “Large Eddy Simulation of Reactive Two-Phase Flow in an Aeronautical Multipoint Burner,” Flow Turbul. Combust., 90, pp. 449–469. [CrossRef]
Franzelli, B., 2011, private communication.
Goodwin, D., Malaya, N., Moffat, H., and Speth, R., 2011, “Cantera: An Object-Oriented Software Toolkit for Chemical Kinetics, Thermodynamics, and Transport Processes,” Version 1.8, https://code.google.com/p/cantera/
Patel, N., and Menon, S., 2008, “Simulation of Spray Turbulence Flame Interactions in a Lean Direct Injection Combustor,” Combust. Flame, 153, pp. 228–257. [CrossRef]
Marchioli, C., Armenio, V., and Soldati, A., 2007, “Simple and Accurate Scheme for Fluid Velocity Interpolation for Eulerian Lagrangian Computation of Dispersed Flows in 3D Curvilinear Grids,” Comput. Fluids, 36, pp. 1187–1198. [CrossRef]
Miller, R. S., and Bellan, J., 1999, “Direct Numerical Simulation of a Confined Three-Dimensional Gas Mixing Layer With One Evaporating Hydrocarbon-Droplet-Laden Stream,” J. Fluid Mech., 384, pp. 293–338. [CrossRef]
Yoo, C., and Im, H., 2007, “Characteristic Boundary Conditions for Simulations of Compressible Reacting Flows With Multi-Dimensional, Viscous and Reaction Effects,” Combust. Theory Model., 11(2), pp. 259–286. [CrossRef]
Smirnov, A., Shi, S., and Celik, I., 2001, “Random Flow Generation Technique for Large Eddy Simulations and Particle-Dynamics Modeling,” ASME Trans. J. Fluids Eng., 123, pp. 359–371. [CrossRef]
Coordinating Research Council, 1983, “Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties,” CRC Tech. Report No. 530.
Shanbhogue, S., Husain, S., and Lieuwen, T., 2009, “Lean Blowoff of Bluff Body Stabilized Flames: Scaling and Dynamics,” Prog. Energy Combust., 35, pp. 98–120. [CrossRef]
Friedrich, R., 1999, “Modelling of Turbulence in Compressible Flows,” Transition, Turbulence and Combustion Modelling, Vol. 6, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 243–348.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Normalized resolved turbulent kinetic energy in the shear layer at x = D for nonreacting LES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mean axial velocity on the centerline at several locations near the bluff-body trailing edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Single flameholder test rig. (a) View of entire computational domain with an isosurface of temperature showing flame structure typical of the ϕglobal ≈ 0.5 operating condition. (b) Detail view of bluff body showing the locations of discrete staggered fuel injectors.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Mean axial velocity in the vertical and spanwise directions at x = −12.3D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of experimental flame image sequence [2] with LES (spanwise-averaged CO and CO2 mass fraction overlayed on heat release rate) at two different global equivalence ratios: (a) ϕglobal ≈ 0.95; (b) ϕglobal ≈ 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of experimental time-averaged CH* [2] with simulation time-averaged heat release rate: (a) ϕglobal ≈ 0.95; (b) ϕglobal ≈ 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of experimental spray penetration (left) [2] with simulations (right). Note that the high fuel-flow rate of the experimental image is slightly different than the simulation. (a) ϕglobal ≈ 0.95. (b) ϕglobal ≈ 0.5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Spanwise and time-averaged quantities in the shear layers at several axial locations: (−•−) ϕglobal ≈ 0.95; (−▴−) ϕglobal ≈ 0.5



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