0
Research Papers

Modeling Nonequilibrium Combustion Chemistry Using Constrained Equilibrium Flamelet Model for Kerosene Spray Flame

[+] Author and Article Information
Prakash Ghose

School of Mechanical Engineering,
KIIT University,
Bhubaneswar 751024, India
e-mail: prakashgbanu@yahoo.co.in

Amitava Datta

Department of Power Engineering,
Jadavpur University,
Salt Lake Campus,
Kolkata 700098, India
e-mail: amdatta_ju@yahoo.com

Achintya Mukhopadhyay

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Jadavpur University,
Kolkata 700032, India
e-mail: achintya.mukho@gmail.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS. Manuscript received April 23, 2014; final manuscript received January 28, 2015; published online November 11, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Suman Chakraborty.

J. Thermal Sci. Eng. Appl 8(1), 011004 (Nov 11, 2015) (10 pages) Paper No: TSEA-14-1080; doi: 10.1115/1.4030700 History: Received April 23, 2014

Numerical simulation employing different models is popularly used to predict spray combustion of liquid fuels. In the present work, we have compared the effects of three different combustion models, viz., eddy dissipation model, laminar flamelet model with detailed chemical reaction mechanism, and constrained equilibrium flamelet model, on the temperature, soot, and NOx distributions in an axisymmetric combustor burning kerosene spray. Experiments have also been performed in a combustor of the same geometry to validate some predictions from the models. The constraint condition for the equilibrium flamelet model has been adopted by suitably accounting the effects of scalar dissipation rate on the prediction of scalar variables in a laminar flamelet and by considering the mixture fraction and scalar dissipation rate distributions in the combustor under test. It is found that the results predicted by the two flamelet models agree closely between them and also with the experiments. On the other hand, the eddy dissipation model predicts a much higher flame temperature, soot, and NOx concentrations in the combustor. The results suggest the importance of chemistry in the prediction of the turbulent spray flame. It also suggests that with a proper choice of the constraint condition, the equilibrium flamelet model can address the nonequilibrium chemistry in the flame due to the high value of scalar dissipation rate.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Geometry (physical model) of the combustor in computation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Wall temperature variation in the combustor with different mesh configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Variation of ε/k (top half) and reaction rate (bottom half) in the combustor predicted using the eddy dissipation model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Variation of mean mixture fraction (top half) and mean scalar dissipation rate (bottom half) in the combustor predicted using the laminar flamelet model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Variation of mean temperature with mean mixture fraction at different scalar dissipation rates (s−1) from the laminar flamelet model and using the constrained equilibrium model with constraint set at equivalence ratio of 1.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Temperature (K) distributions in the combustor using (a) eddy dissipation model, (b) laminar flamelet model, and (c) constrained equilibrium model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Wall temperature distribution in the combustor using different combustion models and from experiments and (b) exit gas temperature distribution using different combustion models and from experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of mean values of (a) temperature, (b) mixture fraction, and (c) soot volume fraction in a kerosene vapor coflow confined turbulent jet diffusion flame between prediction with constrained equilibrium model and experimental results [38]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Soot volume fraction distributions in the combustor using (a) eddy dissipation model, (b) laminar flamelet model, and (c) constrained equilibrium model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

NOx mass fraction distributions in the combustor using (a) eddy dissipation model, (b) laminar flamelet model, and (c) constrained equilibrium model

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