First and second order lagrangian conditional moment closure method in turbulent nonpremixed flames
Introduction
The conditional moment closure (CMC) method is based on conditional averaging in terms of the sampling variable for mixture fraction without a priori assumption on flame structures or combustion regimes in turbulent nonpremixed combustion. Nonlinear reaction rates were modeled by first and second order closure in terms of conditional means, variances and covariances of species mass fractions and temperature [1], [2], [3]. Eulerian CMC is appropriate for complicated recirculating flow, while it suffers from an additional dimension of the sampling variable and uncertainties in the closure models [4]. Conditional equations were often discretized with homogeneity assumed in the cross-stream direction or in the whole domain as an incompletely stirred reactor to reduce the dimension in Eulerian CMC [5]. Dual meshes were employed to reduce computational burden in three dimensional CMC and Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) fields of furnaces [6], diesel engines [7], and compartment fires [8].
Steady and unsteady flamelet models have been employed in a wide range of practical problems due to their simpler structure and computational efficiency [9], [10], [11]. They require less computational load than Eulerian CMC for a limited number of Lagrangian flamelets coupled with mean flow field or in the postprocessing mode. Lagrangian CMC [12] was proposed in terms of multiple Lagrangian fuel groups according to injection sequence or residence time to resolve some of the difficulties in Eulerian CMC. The same conditional profile was assumed for each fuel group with no convection and diffusion terms, therefore, no model required for conditional velocity nor the gradient diffusion assumption. Lagrangian CMC has some similarity with the Eulerian Particle Flamelet Model (EPFM) [13], [14] which tracks the mass weighted fraction of particles for multiple Lagrangian flamelets. The CMC method has its strength in general validity of the conditional equations derived through rigorous mathematical procedure and flexibility to allow higher order closure of conditional reaction rates. Flame group interaction was taken into account by the eddy breakup model as premixed combustion along constant mixture fraction contours for a lifted flame [15] or to avoid abrupt ignition and heat release of sequential groups in a diesel engine [16]. In this paper Lagrangian CMC is established through the generalized function procedure together with a transport equation for the associated probability density function (PDF). Governing equations and conditional submodels are introduced for first and second order closure of the reaction rates and applied to Sandia Flame D and E in the Turbulent Nonpremixed Flame Workshop website [17].
Section snippets
Derivation of the Lagrangian CMC equation
Consider a Lagrangian particle originating from x0 at the nozzle exit at time t0 so that xL(t0) = x0 and ξL(t0) = 1. Any Lagrangian quantity associated with the particle may be represented as implying . is the conditional mean of Φ defined as [4]. ξ is the mixture fraction and η is the sampling variable for fluctuating ξ. The subscript, L, represents a Lagrangian quantity. It holds thatso that
Procedure for multiple flame groups and closure models
Multiple flame groups may be defined for fuel injected sequentially at the nozzle and tracked with Lagrangian identities in the domain. Fuel of the same residence time shares approximately the same conditional flame structure in many problems including transient autoignition and steady parabolic 1D jet flames. In this work each flame group evolves independently from the initial state of fuel and air according to the mean SDR over the flame region with no mutual interaction among flame groups.
Numerical algorithm
Figure 1 shows the flow chart of OpenFOAM coupled with the Lagrangian CMC routine. It is divided into two parts. One is the OpenFOAM routine which solves flow and mixing field in the physical space, i.e., Favre mean mass, momentum, energy, mean mixture fraction, mixture fraction variance and . The other is the CMC routine which solves conditional mean mass fractions and enthalpy in the mixture fraction space. Conditional SDR, pressure and its temporal rate of change are provided from
Results and discussion
The first and second order Lagrangian CMC methods are applied to Sandia Flame D and E, turbulent piloted jet diffusion flames near extinction with the Reynolds number of 22,400 and 33,600, respectively. Fuel is mixture of methane and air of a 1:3 volume ratio injected at 294 K through a single hole nozzle. The diameter, d, of the fuel jet is 7.2 mm, while the outer diameter of the annular pilot is 18.2 mm. The fuel jet is injected at 49.6 m/s and 74.4 m/s for Flame D and E, while the coflow air
Conclusion
- (1)
The Lagrangian CMC method is developed in terms of multiple fuel groups injected sequentially into the domain. Each Lagrangian fuel group has the same homogeneous conditional flame structure under the same residence time. The probability to find the kth group is assumed proportional to so that the local flame structure is given as the weighted average in Eq. (12). The mean SDR for each group is given as the average weighted by local , pk and and integrated over the domain in Eq. (14).
- (2)
References (24)
- et al.
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.
(1999) - et al.
Proc. Combust. Inst.
(2007) - et al.
Combust. Flame
(2005) - et al.
Proc. Combust. Inst.
(1998) - et al.
Proc. Combust. Inst.
(1998) - et al.
Proc. Combust. Inst.
(2009) - et al.
Proc. Combust. Inst.
(2000) - et al.
Combust. Flame
(2001) - et al.
Combust. Flame
(2004) - et al.
Proc. Combust. Inst.
(1989)
Combust. Flame
Proc. Combust. Inst.
Cited by (13)
Conditional moment closure method with tabulated chemistry in adiabatic turbulent nonpremixed jet flames
2021, Combustion and FlameOpenFOAM based conditional moment closure (CMC) model for solving non-premixed turbulent combustion: Integration and validation
2019, Computers and FluidsCitation Excerpt :The coupling methodology (CFD-CMC) discussed in this article has been intended to solve non-premixed combustion problems. The remarkable difference between other methodologies of CFD-CMC coupling [26–30] and the present methodology is that all CMC functionalities (conditional transport equations and sub-models) have been built entirely within the OpenFOAM C++ object-oriented framework. This enables to solve flow-field equations and conditional transport equations together at every time-step so that even transient problems may be analyzed.
Simulation of flow field and carbon monoxide emission in an industrial scale heat recovery steam generator
2018, Applied Thermal EngineeringCitation Excerpt :It is consistent with the conditional profile showing a higher CO for rich mixture in Fig. 9, which led to the overpredicted Favre mean CO for rich mixture near the nozzle in Fig. 8. The results in Figs. 7–9 are consistent with the previous ones for Sandia Flame D by the conditional moment closure model in Kim et al. [19] and Han and Huh [20]. The ULFM is employed in the following simulations of flow field and CO emission for the industrial scale HRSG under consideration.
Comparative study between Conditional Moment Closure (CMC) and Conditional Source-term Estimation (CSE) applied to piloted jet flames
2017, Combustion and FlameCitation Excerpt :In the current study, a simulation using a mixed inlet boundary condition (burning in pilot, non-reacting everywhere else) did not improve the CMC predictions (not shown). This observation is consistent with previous RANS-CMC simulations using mixed inlet boundary conditions for the Sandia D and E flames, which resulted in temperature overprediction for Flame E [52,53]. In [55], where LES-CMC simulation results for Flame F are presented, it is clearly shown that LES-CMC is able to accurately capture this trend.
Simulation of ECN diesel spray A using conditional source-term estimation
2020, Combustion Theory and Modelling