Experimental Data Simulation Details

Copyright © 2011 Praise Worthy Prize S.r.l. - All rights reserved International Review of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 5, N. 2 Special Issue on Heat Transfer 220 Here, Z Sc and 2 Z Sc are the Schmidt numbers and are chosen to be 0.85. t µ is the turbulent viscosity, k is the turbulence kinetic energy and ε is its dissipation rate. Z is assumed to follow, p, the presumed β-function PDF [13]. The mean values of mass fractions of species, temperature and density, presented as φ can be calculated, in non-adiabatic systems assuming enthalpy fluctuations independent from the enthalpy level as: 1 Z ,H p Z dZ φ φ = ∫ 7 where, H is the mean enthalpy which is defined as: t h p k H uH H S t c ρ ρ ⎛ ⎞ ∂ + ∇⋅ = ∇⋅ ∇ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ∂ ⎝ ⎠ 8 Here, h S is a sink or source term due to radiation or heat transfer to wall boundaries. II.2. Realizable k- ε Turbulence Model To predict an accurate spreading rate of round jets the realizable k- ε model is a good opportunity. The Boussinesq approach of this model assumes the turbulent viscosity as an isotropic scalar quantity. The advantage of this approach is the relatively low computational cost, although the isotropic assumption is not valid for most of the turbulent flows. The model includes an eddy- viscosity formula and a model equation for dissipation [14]. The equation for the turbulent kinetic energy is the same as that in the standard k- ε model. The dissipation equation is based on the dynamic equation of the mean- square vorticity fluctuation. C µ is computed as a function of k and ε. The model constants C 2 = 1.9, σ k = 1.0, and σ ε = 1.2 have been established to ensure that the model performs well for certain canonical flows [13]. In this work for some results the standard value of the model constant C 2 was changed to C 2 = 1.8 as recommended in literature for the standard k- ε model [15]. II.3. Reynolds Stress Turbulence Model RSM Measurements on the Sandia flame D show anisotropic turbulent fluctuations [16]. Compared to the k- ε model the Reynolds stress model is able to account for anisotropic turbulent flows. It solves a transport equation for each of the stress terms in the Reynolds stress tensor. RSM is better for situations in which the anisotropy of turbulence has a dominant effect on the mean flow. Since in 3D seven additional transport equations have to be solved, this turbulence model is more computational intensive as the realizable k- ε model. II.4. Discrete Transfer Radiation Model DTRM The model assumes the radiation leaving a surface element, in a certain range of solid angles, can be approximated by a single ray. Optical refraction and scattering effects are neglected. The change of radiation intensity I along the path s is defined as: 4 B a T dI aI ds σ π + = 9 where, a is the absorption coefficient, σ B the Stefan- Boltzmann constant which is σ B = 5.672e-08 Wm²K 4 , I is the radiation intensity and T the local temperature. Eq. 9 is integrated along a series of rays emanating from boundary faces. To achieve accurate results a high number of rays is necessary. This causes long computation times. II.5. Discrete Ordinates Radiation Model DO The DO model uses transport equations for radiation intensity. It solves for as many transport equations as there are directions, s . In contrast to the DTRM model, the DO model includes reflection, refraction and scattering. The position vector, r , accounts for the radial spreading of rays. Thus, fewer discrete rays are required. The radiation intensity is written as [17]: 4 2 4 4 B s s dI r ,s T a I r ,s an ds I r ,s s s d π σ σ π σ π + + = + + Φ ⋅ Ω ∫ 10 where, s is the standardized direction vector of the scattered radiation, σ s is the scattering coefficient, n is the refraction index, Φ is the phase function for the scattered radiation and Ω is the solid angle to the solid wall. In both radiation models the absorption coefficient, a, is determined by the Weighted Sum of Grey Gases WSGGM Model. Here, a is a function of local concentrations of CO 2 and H 2 O-vapor and is defined as [18]: b i i a b p = ∑ 11 Here, b b are polynomials and p i is the partial pressure of the i th species.

III. Experimental Data

Flame simulations are performed and compared with experimental data from literature [15], [16]. For comparison, the turbulent non-premixed piloted methane flame “Sandia flame D” was chosen. It was measured at room temperature at the Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, California and at the Technical University of Copyright © 2011 Praise Worthy Prize S.r.l. - All rights reserved International Review of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 5, N. 2 Special Issue on Heat Transfer 221 Darmstadt in Germany [15], [16]. The experimental and simulation conditions are shown in Table I. TABLE I E XPERIMENTAL AND S IMULATION C ONDITIONS [15], [16] Jet diameter [m] 0.0072 Pilot diameter [m] 0.0182 Jet composition CH 4 air [vol.-] 2575 Pilot mixture fraction [-] 0.27 Jet Reynolds number [-] 22,400 Jet velocity [ms] profile Pilot velocity [ms] profile CO flowing air velocity [ms] 0.9 Relative velocity jet-co flow[ms] 48.7 Fuel temperature [K] 294 CO flowing air temperature [K] 291 Methane is partially premixed with air to prevent almost completely soot formation and to provide a stable flow field. However, this flame burns as a non-premixed flame with a single reaction zone near the stoichiometric mixture. In fuel rich regions significant premixed reactions were not observed [16]. The Reynolds number of the jet exit is 22,400 with a low probability of localized flame extinction. The pilot flame burns a mixture of gases having the same composition and enthalpy as a CH 4 air mixture at 0.27 mixture fraction. A coflowing air was placed around the flame to avoid the influence of airflow in radial direction. The coflowing air parallel to the flame was about 0.9 ms.

IV. Simulation Details

2D axisymmetrical and 3D simulations are performed. The burner is positioned in the center of the coflowing air as shown in Fig. 1. The distance between the burner center and the domain border is chosen to be 0.036 m to minimize the influence of the boundary condition there. Details of the burner nozzle are given in Fig. 2. The computational domains are discretized into hexahedral elements that are refined around the inlet of the burner nozzle. The 2D grid consists of 11970 elements and the 3D grid of 228,800 elements. Fig. 1. 3D geometry with the burner in the center of the of the coflowing air region. Units are given in [mm] Fig. 2. Details of the piloted burner nozzle. Units are given in [mm] A mesh sensitivity analysis was performed only for the 2D simulations [19]. The mesh was optimized in axial direction regarding the mixture fraction and in radial direction regarding the axial velocity. The 2D grid is shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3. 2D axisymmetrical grid optimized in axial and radial directions. The refined region along the bottom axis covers the flame Copyright © 2011 Praise Worthy Prize S.r.l. - All rights reserved International Review of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 5, N. 2 Special Issue on Heat Transfer 222 In order to get an equivalent comparison, the 3D grid elements are distributed in the same way as for the 2D grid. The inlet velocity profile for the pilot and burner is positioned at the exit plane of the burner. Inlet turbulence parameters for k and ε were either estimated values, constant or linearized values based on measurements [16]. At the outlet, the surface surrounding the co-flowing air and the surface opposite of the burner, a constant pressure is applied as boundary condition. Material and process data used for the simulations are summarized in Table I. The equations are solved using the ANSYS-FLUENT CFD package. The thermo physical data of FLUENT are used. To account for detailed chemical kinetic the Gri-Mech 3.0 mechanism was implemented, considering 53 species and 325 reactions [20]. For all simulations presented in this paper, a second order upwind scheme was used for the conservation equation of momentum, turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent dissipation rate, mean mixture fraction and mean mixture fraction variance. The Presto scheme was used for interpolation methods for pressure [13]. Simple was chosen for the coupling between velocity and pressure [13].

V. Results and Discussions