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

Modeling Strategies for Large Eddy Simulation of Lean Burn Spray Flames

[+] Author and Article Information
S. Puggelli

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

D. Bertini

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

L. Mazzei

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

A. Andreini

Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Florence,
via S. 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 July 26, 2017; final manuscript received August 9, 2017; published online November 21, 2017. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 140(5), 051501 (Nov 21, 2017) (11 pages) Paper No: GTP-17-1396; doi: 10.1115/1.4038127 History: Received July 26, 2017; Revised August 09, 2017

Over the last years, aero-engines are progressively evolving toward design concepts that permit improvements in terms of engine safety, fuel economy, and pollutant emissions. With the aim of satisfying the strict NOx reduction targets imposed by ICAO-CAEP, lean burn technology is one of the most promising solutions even if it must face safety concerns and technical issues. Hence, a depth insight on lean burn combustion is required, and computational fluid dynamics can be a useful tool for this purpose. In this work, a comparison in large eddy simulation (LES) framework of two widely employed combustion approaches like the artificially thickened flame (ATF) and the flamelet generated manifold (FGM) is performed using ANSYS fluent v16.2. Two literature test cases with increasing complexity in terms of geometry, flow field, and operating conditions are considered. First, capabilities of FGM are evaluated on a single swirler burner operating at ambient pressure with a standard pressure atomizer for spray injection. Then, a second test case, operated at 4 bar, is simulated. Here, kerosene fuel is burned after an injection through a prefilming airblast atomizer within a corotating double swirler. Obtained comparisons with experimental results show different capabilities of ATF and FGM in modeling the partially premixed behavior of the flame and provide an overview of the main strengths and limitations of the modeling strategies under investigation.

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


Gicquel, L. Y. M. , Staffelbach, G. , and Poinsot, T. , 2012, “ Large Eddy Simulations of Gaseous Flames in Gas Turbine Combustion Chambers,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 38(6), pp. 782–817.
Jones, W. P. , Marquis, A. J. , and Vogiatzaki, K. , 2014, “ Large-Eddy Simulation of Spray Combustion in a Gas Turbine Combustor,” Combust. Flame, 161(1), pp. 222–239. [CrossRef]
Boudier, G. , Gicquel, L. Y. M. , and Poinsot, T. J. , 2008, “ Effects of Mesh Resolution on Large Eddy Simulation of Reacting Flows in Complex Geometry Combustors,” Combust. Flame, 155(1–2), pp. 196–214. [CrossRef]
Sheen, D. , 1993, “ Swirl-Stabilised Turbulent Spray Flames in an Axisymmetric Model Combustor,” Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, London. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.445249
Freitag, S. , Meier, U. , Heinze, J. , Behrendt, T. , and Hassa, C. , 2010, “ Measurement of Initial Conditions of a Kerosene Spray From a Generic Aeroengine Injector at Elevated Pressure,” 23rd Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (ILASS), Brno, Czech Republic, Sept. 6–9.
Meier, U. , Heinze, J. , Freitag, S. , and Hassa, C. , 2012, “ Spray and Flame Structure of a Generic Injector at Aeroengine Conditions,” ASME J. Gas Turbines Power, 134(3), p. 031503. [CrossRef]
Lilly, D. K. , 1992, “ A Proposed Modification of the Germano Subgrid-Scale Closure Model,” Phys. Fluids, 4(3), pp. 633–635. [CrossRef]
Morsi, S. A. , and Alexander, A. J. , 1972, “ An Investigation of Particle Trajectories in Two-Phase Flow Systems,” J. Fluid Mech., 55(02), pp. 193–208. [CrossRef]
Joseph, D. , Belanger, J. , and Beavers, G. S. , 1999, “ Breakup of a Liquid Drop Suddenly Exposed to a High-Speed Airstream,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 25(6), pp.1263–1303. [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]
Sazhin, S. S. , 2006, “ Advanced Models of Fuel Droplet Heating and Evaporation,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 32(2), pp. 162–214. [CrossRef]
Gosman, A. D. , and Ioannides, E. , 1983, “ Aspects of Computer Simulation of Liquid-Fueled Combustors,” J. Energy, 7(6), pp. 482–490.
Rachner, M. , 1998, “ Die Stoffeigenschaften von Kerosin Jet A-1,” DLR-Institut für Antriebstechnik, Köln-Porz, Germany, Technical Report.
Knudsen, E. , and Pitsch, H. , 2010, “ Large-Eddy Simulation for Combustion Systems: Modeling Approaches for Partially Premixed Flows,” Open Thermodyn. J., 4(1), pp. 76–85. [CrossRef]
Colin, O. , Ducros, F. , Veynante, D. , and Poinsot, T. , 2000, “ A Thickened Flame Model for Large Eddy Simulations of Turbulent Premixed Combustion,” Phys. Fluids, 12(7), pp. 1843–1863. [CrossRef]
Wang, G. , Boileau, M. , and Veynante, D. , 2011, “ Implementation of a Dynamic Thickened Flame Model for Large Eddy Simulations of Turbulent Premixed Combustion,” Combust. Flame, 158(11), pp. 2199–2213. [CrossRef]
Zimont, V. , Polifke, W. , Bettelini, M. , and Weisenstein, W. , 1998, “ An Efficient Computational Model for Premixed Turbulent Combustion at High Reynolds Numbers Based on a Turbulent Flame Speed Closure,” ASME J. Gas Turbines Power, 120(3), pp. 526–532. [CrossRef]
Legier, J. P. , Poinsot, T. , and Veynante, D. , 2000, “ Dynamically Thickened Flame LES Model for Premixed and Non-Premixed Turbulent Combustion,” Summer Program of Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford, CA, pp. 157–168.
Selle, L. , Lartigue, G. , Poinsot, T. , Koch, R. , Schildmacher, K. U. , Krebs, W. , Prade, B. , Kaufmann, P. , and Veynante, D. , 2004, “ Compressible Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Combustion in Complex Geometry on Unstructured Meshes,” Combust. Flame, 137(4), pp. 489–505. [CrossRef]
Donini, A. , Bastiaans, R. J. M. , Van Oijen, J. A. , and de Goey, L. P. H. , 2015, “ The Implementation of Five-Dimensional FGM Combustion Model for the Simulation of a Gas Turbine Model Combustor,” ASME Paper No. GT2015-42037.
ANSYS, 2016, “ ANSYS Fluent 16 Theory Guide,” ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Sirjean, B., Dames, E., Sheen, D. A., and Wang, H., 2009, “ Simplified Chemical Kinetic Models for High-Temperature Oxidation of C1 to C12,” 6th U.S. National Combustion Meeting, Ann Arbor, MI, May 17–20, Paper No. 23.F1. https://web.stanford.edu/group/haiwanglab/JetSurF/JetSurF1.0/Reduced%20Model/23F1.pdf
Westbrook, C. K. , and Dryer, F. L. , 1981, “ Simplified Reaction Mechanisms for the Oxidation of Hydrocarbon Fuels in Flames,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 27(1–2), pp. 31–43. [CrossRef]
Moghaddas, A. , Eisazadeh-Far, K. , and Metghalchi, H. , 2012, “ Laminar Burning Speed Measurement of Premixed n-Decane/Air Mixtures Using Spherically Expanding Flames at High Temperatures and Pressures,” Combust. Flame, 159(4), pp. 1437–1443. [CrossRef]
Blint, R. J. , 1986, “ The Relationship of the Laminar Flame Width to Flame Speed,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 49(1–2), pp. 79–92. [CrossRef]
Jones, W. P. , Lyra, S. , and Navarro-Martinez, S. , 2012, “ Numerical Investigation of Swirling Kerosene Spray Flames Using Large Eddy Simulation,” Combust. Flame, 159(4), pp. 1539–1561. [CrossRef]
Pope, S. B. , 2004, “ Ten Questions Concerning the Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flows,” New J. Phys., 6, p. 35.
Fossi, A. , deChamplain, A. , Paquet, B. , Kalla, S. , and Bergthorson, J. M. , 2015, “ Scale-Adaptive and Large Eddy Simulations of a Turbulent Spray Flame in a Scaled Swirl-Stabilized Gas Turbine Combustor Using Strained Flamelets,” ASME Paper No. GT2015-42535.
Smith, T. F. , Shen, Z. F. , and Friedman, J. N. , 1982, “ Evaluation of Coefficients for the Weighted Sum of Gray Gases Model,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 104(4), pp. 602–608. [CrossRef]
Puggelli, S. , Bertini, D. , Mazzei, L. , and Andreini, A. , 2016, “ Assessment of Scale-Resolved Computational Fluid Dynamics Methods for the Investigation of Lean Burn Spray Flames,” ASME J. Gas Turbines Power, 139(2), p. 021501. [CrossRef]
Nakod, P. , Yadav, R. , Rajeshirke, P. , and Orsino, S. , 2014, “ A Comparative Computational Fluid Dynamics Study on Flamelet-Generated Manifold and Steady Laminar Flamelet Modeling for Turbulent Flames,” ASME J. Gas Turbines Power, 136(8), p. 081504. [CrossRef]
Nakod, P. , and Yadav, R. , 2015, “ Numerical Computation of a Turbulent Lifted Flame Using Flamelet Generated Manifold With Different Progress Variable Definitions,” ASME Paper No. GTINDIA2015-1406.
Andreini, A. , Bianchini, C. , Caciolli, G. , Facchini, B. , Giusti, A. , and Turrini, F. , 2014, “ Multi-Coupled Numerical Analysis of Advanced Lean Burn Injection Systems,” ASME Paper No. GT2014-26808.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Sketch of the geometry experimentally studied and of the spray flame under investigation (adapted from Ref. [4])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

DLR generic single sector combustor with details of the swirler geometry and of the studied flame (adapted from Refs. [5] and [6])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational domain and boundary conditions used for Sheen burner

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Instantaneous (τft = 3.5 for M1; τft = 2.5 for M2) and mean temperature and velocity distributions for Sheen burner for M1 and M2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Axial velocity (top) and temperature (bottom) profiles at several axial positions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Dry (percent) mole fractions of CO2 (top) and O2 (bottom) profiles at several axial positions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Dry (percent) mole fractions of H2 (top) and CO (bottom) profiles at several axial positions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Computational domain used for DLR-SSGC burner

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Instantaneous (for τft = 2) and mean axial velocity and temperature distributions obtained with FGM and ATF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Isocontours of heat release rates obtained with FGM and ATF against the experimental map (modified from Ref. [6]). Super-imposed isolines represent different levels of fuel distribution. The horizontal white line indicates the burner exit plane. The red points A, B, C, and D on the experimental map highlight the radial positions where spray PDF is evaluated (see Fig. 14).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Temperature distributions obtained with FGM and ATF against the experimental map (modified from Ref. [6]). The white line indicates the burner exit plane.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Isocontours of heat release rates obtained with FGM using finite rate (left) and Zimont (right) closures. The white line indicates the burner exit plane.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Temperature profiles obtained with FGM and ATF at several axial distances

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

PDF spray distributions obtained with FGM and ATF at z = 7 mm at four radial positions (see Fig. 10 for details about the four locations)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of SMD (top) and axial velocity (bottom) obtained with FGM and ATF against experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of liquid volume flux for the 16 μm class obtained with ATF against experimental data (adapted from Ref.[6])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Profiles of axial velocities at axial position 7 mm for different size classes obtained with FGM and ATF



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