Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Title: Application of an efficient exponential wide band model for the natural
gas combustion simulation in a 300 kW BERL burner furnace
Author: Linbo Yan, Guangxi Yue, Boshu He
PII:
DOI:
Reference:
S1359-4311(15)01036-4
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.109
ATE 7106
To appear in:
Received date:
Accepted date:
28-3-2015
5-9-2015
Please cite this article as: Linbo Yan, Guangxi Yue, Boshu He, Application of an efficient
exponential wide band model for the natural gas combustion simulation in a 300 kW BERL
burner furnace, Applied Thermal Engineering (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.109.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will
undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its
final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could
affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Department of Thermal Engineering, Key Laboratory for Thermal Science and Power
Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Institute of Combustion and Thermal System, School of Mechanical, Electronic and Control
Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
Highlights
Page 1 of 34
Graphical Abstract
Abstract:
Methane is one of the most important radiation participating medium. However, the
weighted-sum-of-gray-gas (WSGG) model which is widely used in the recent
commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software cannot address the
contribution of methane to the effective absorption coefficient (EAC) when
simulating the natural gas combustion. In this work, an efficient exponential wide
band (E-EWB) model which accounts for the effects of many species including H2O,
CO2, CO and CH4 on EAC is proposed and numerical simulations are carried out for
the natural gas combustion in a 300 kW BERL (Burner Engineering Research
Laboratory) burner. The results including the distributions of axial velocity, gas
temperature and the O2 mass fraction in the furnace obtained by the simulations with
2
Page 2 of 34
both the WSGG model and the E-EWB model are then analyzed and validated against
the experimental data. The calculation efficiencies of the two simulations with the
WSGG and E-EWB models are also compared. It is found that simulation with the
E-EWB model generates much better results, although its calculation speed is about
1.8 times slower than that of the simulation with the WSGG model.
temperature-dependent
weighting factor
density
Stefan-Boltzmann constant
scattering coefficient
general scalar
Adomain
(T)
bj
polynomial coefficients
Ir
radiation intensity
(T)
ki(r)
absorption coefficient
solid angle
path length
Abbreviations
total pressure
BERL
position vector
CFD
direction vector
DO
discrete ordinates
DTRM
time
EAC
Tg
gas tempterature
EDC
eddy-dissipation concept
velocity vector
E-EWB
Vdomain
total volume
LBL
line by line
Greek symbols
NBM
RKE
Realizable
in
RSM
SKE
Standard k- model
Page 3 of 34
in
S2S
surface-to-surface
UDF
WSGG
weighted-sum-of-gray-gas
phase function
1 Introduction
The consumption of natural gas can emit 50% less pollution compared to other
fossil fuels
[1]
[2]
. It is also
reported that natural gas will gradually take the place of coal as an important fuel for
power generation
[3]
[4]
. Numerical
simulation is usually an effective and economical way for the burner design and
optimization before its practical operation. However, in terms of the turbulent flow,
the gas-phase chemical reactions, and the heat transfer and so on, numerical
simulation of the natural gas combustion is usually complex. Many turbulent models
including the Standard k- model (SKE) [5], the Realizable k- model (RKE) [6] and the
Reynolds Stress model (RSM)
[7]
dynamics CFD software can address the turbulence flow well. The eddy-dissipation
concept (EDC) is also a good model to account for the turbulence-chemistry
interaction
mechanism
[8]
. For the methane combustion, GRI-3.0 has listed the detailed kinetic
[9]
simplification in order to be used in the CFD calculation. Since the natural gas flame
temperature are usually very high, radiation heat transfer will play an important role.
4
Page 4 of 34
To simulate the radiation heat transfer in the furnace, many mathematical models have
been developed, such as the discrete transfer radiation model (DTRM)
radiation model
[11]
[12]
[10]
, the P-1
radiation model [13], and the discrete ordinates (DO) radiation model [12]. To solve any
of these radiative transfer equations, the effective absorption coefficient (EAC) of the
participation medium must be given or calculated. In the recent commercially
available CFD software, the weighted-sum-of-gray-gas (WSGG) model
[14]
is
generally used to calculate EAC. The WSGG model, however, only allows for the
contribution of H2O and CO2, prone to cause great error when large amount of other
radiation absorptive species like CO and CH4 appeared in the gas mixture. In fact, one
can add the additional species in the reference database for the WSGG model so that
the effects of these species on EAC can also be considered. However, it would be hard
for the WSGG model to consider the effects of these additional species because there
will be too many combinations of the species mole ratios for the actual
implementation of the WSGG model. In addition, the WSGG model cannot calculate
the EAC for the continuous species mole ratios. It is therefore very meaningful to
develop such an EAC calculation method that can consider the effects of multiple
radiative species and, in the meantime, is efficient enough to be used in the CFD
calculation.
Many researchers have focused on the modification and development of the
WSGG model to make this model justified for more and more cases and the
exponential wide band (EWB) model and other complex models are usually chosen as
5
Page 5 of 34
the reference model. Kangwanpongpan once optimized the WSGG model for the
oxy-combustion of coal particles in a furnace and found that the results calculated
with the optimized WSGG model were much better [15]. Yin once did detailed research
on the chemistry and radiation in the numerical simulations of oxy-combustion of
natural gas and developed a new WSGG model in their work
[16]
. Their simulation
[18]
software to calculate EAC through the user defined function (UDF) interface. In order
to evaluate the E-EWB model in the CFD calculation, numerical simulations are
carried out to predict the natural gas flame in the 300 kW BERLBurner Engineering
Research Laboratoryburner. Some researchers [19] once did a series simulations of the
same burner and their work has great reference value to this research. However, some
of their simulation results, especially the gas temperature, are found deviating much
from the measured data. Thus, the more advanced EAC calculation model is used in
this work in the hope that the accuracy of the calculation results can be improved. The
calculation results of simulations with both the E-EWB model and the WSGG model
are compared and validated against the measured data. The time consumptions of the
simulations with the two models are also compared.
Page 6 of 34
[14]
and has been further developed and modified by many other researchers in the recent
years
[20]
[21]
CFD software. Although the calculation speed of the WSGG model is very fast and
generates acceptable errors for the ranges of temperatures and pressures that cover
almost all the traditional combusting processes, there are also a lot of limitations
[22]
The E-EWB model [18] was developed based on the EWB model in our lab. The EWB
model was firstly developed by Edwards & Menard
[24]
[23]
. Although the EWB model is more accurate and flexible than the WSGG model
and is much faster than the line by line (LBL) method [25] and the narrow band model
(NBM)
[25]
engineering application. That is why the E-EWB model needs to be developed. The
E-EWB model inherits almost all the advantages of the EWB model but it can be
about 350 times faster than the EWB model [18], which makes it very prospective to be
implemented in the CFD calculations.
[14]
. The total
Page 7 of 34
a i ( T g ) (1 e
ki P L
(1)
i0
where, ai(Tg) is the temperature-dependent weighting factor for the ith gray gas at gas
temperature Tg; ki is the absorption coefficient of the ith gray gas; P is the total
pressure of the participating gases; and L is the path length. To solve Eq. (1), ai(Tg)
and ki should be known. These two parameters can be obtained by fitting the
emissivity data to those calculated by other models like the EWB model or the LBL
method. The fitting procedure can be found elsewhere [23]:
The original set of ai and ki used in Fluent can be found in some literature [26].
[18]
The calculation procedure of the E-EWB model is the same with that of the EWB
model. The main differences between the E-EWB and the EWB models are the
calculations of the integrated band intensity, in, the mean line width to spacing ratio
parameter, in, and the black body fractional function. in and in are recalculated with
the polynomial correlations in the E-EWB model, while these two parameters are
calculated based on the quantum mechanics in the original EWB model as shown by
Eq. (2) and Eq. (3).
in T
where,
1 e x p d d
d 1
e
x
p
0 ,d d
d 1
(2)
T0
Page 8 of 34
; 0 is the
[25]
T
0
T0
0 .5
T0
(3)
where, 0 is the reference EWB parameter and (T) is another temperature dependent
parameter.
In addition, a black body fractional function table is built in the E-EWB model.
Thus, the black body intensity can be obtained quickly by table looking up rather than
iteratively solving the corresponding correlations which is time consuming. The
procedure of the EWB model is listed below [27]:
(1) For each gas i, calculate the mass-path length product as defined by Eq. (4);
i i L
(4)
where, i denotes the density of species i and L is the domain based path length
and is calculated with Eq. (5).
L 0 .9 ( 4
V d o m a in
A d o m ia n
where,
V d o m a in
) 3 .6
V d o m a in
(5)
A d o m ia n
A d o m ia n
Page 9 of 34
(5) When all the band limits are calculated, sort in blocks and arrange in ascending
order;
(6) By comparing whether the limits of a given block belongs to none, one or several
absorption bands, compute the block transmissivity as the product of the band
transmissivity to which the block belongs;
(7) Multiply each block emissivity by the fraction of blackbody radiation in the block
limits and sum over all the blocks. The result of this summation gives the total
emissivity.
The two parameters, in and in, for each fundamental band of species H2O, CO2,
CO and CH4 have been recalculated by fitting the emissivity values to those
calculated by the LBL method with the HITEMP-2010 spectral database in the
temperature range of 500 K-2000 K in our former work
[18]
temperature range has been expanded to 300 K-2500 K and they can all be fitted with
Eq. (6).
J
bT
j
(6)
j0
[18]
temperatures between 500 K and 2000 K. The polynomial coefficients for in and in
are listed in Table 5 and Table 6 for gas temperatures between 2000 K and 2500 K.
Detailed comparison of the calculation results obtained by the E-EWB model,
10
Page 10 of 34
the LBL model and the EWB model can be found in our former work
[18]
. Before the
application of the E-EWB model in this work, the calculation result for the H2O, CO2,
CO and CH4 mixture under the specific condition is compared with the value
calculated in the reference [27]. The calculated total emissivity from the E-EWB model
is 0.177657453 and the total emissivity given in reference [27] is 0.167256724. The
values are very close to each other. The cause of the deviation is that the EWB
parameters including in and in are recalculated based on the LBL method and the
HITEMP-2010 spectroscopic database. It should be noted that the spectral data of
CH4 have not been added in the HITEMP-2010 database, so the radiation parameters
of CH4 in the E-EWB model are not updated. This is one flaw of the E-EWB model
and can be modified when CH4 and other species are added in the HITEMP-2010
database.
[28]
body fractional function table before the simulation. The DEFINE PROPERTY
macro [28] is used to transfer EAC calculated with the E-EWB model to the solver. The
general conservation equation form of the reaction flow for the continuous phase can
be written as Eq. (7) [28].
( V ) ( ) S
(7)
11
Page 11 of 34
where, t, ,
, and S are the fluid density, time, general scalar, velocity vector,
effective diffusivity, and the gas phase source term, respectively. The general scalar
includes mass, momentum, enthalpy, species mass fraction and the other turbulence
related parameters. The Reynolds Stress model (RSM) is used to calculate the
turbulence properties in the furnace. The DO radiation model, which is justified in a
wide range of optical thicknesses, is used to simulate the radiation heat transfer in the
furnace and the corresponding correlation is shown as Eq. (8).
( I r (r , s )s ) (kr s ) I r (r , s ) ar nr
where,
Ir
ar
rT
(8)
[29]
Page 12 of 34
has 24 radial fuel inlets and an annular air inlet. Air is introduced through the annular
inlet and movable swirl blades are used to generate swirl. The geometric construction
of the combustor and the close-up of the burner are described in Figures 1 (a) and (b).
Detailed information and further descriptions of the combustor geometry and
boundary conditions can be found in some literature
[30]
13
Page 13 of 34
4 Simulation results
Numerical simulations with both the E-EWB model and the WSGG model are
done and the results including the axial velocity, the gas temperature and the mass
fracion of O2 are compared and validated against the experimental data. In order to
compare the E-EWB model and the WSGG model directly and precisely, radial
distribution profiles of the absorption coefficients calculated with the two models at
the four locations off the quarl exit in the furnace as shown in Figure 1 are firstly
compared in Figures 3 (a)-3 (d). The axial velocity contours of the two simulations
are shown in Figures 4 (a) and 4 (b). Radial distribution profiles of the axial velocities
at the four locations off the quarl exit are shown in Figures 5 (a)- 5 (d). The
temperature contours of the two simulations are shown in Figures 6 (a) and 6 (b).
Radial distribution profiles of the temperatures at the four locations off the quarl exit
in the furnace are shown in Figures 7 (a)-7 (d). The O2 mass fraction contours of the
two simulations are shown in Figures 8 (a) and 8 (b). Radial distribution profiles of
14
Page 14 of 34
the O2 mass fractions at the four locations off the quarl exit in the furnace are shown
in Figures 9 (a)-9 (d).
From Figure 3, it can be seen that the radiation absorption coefficient calcualted
with the E-EWB model is higher than that calculated with the WSGG model in the
near-center zone of the furnace where the natural gas flame prevails. This is because
the E-EWB model allows for the contribution of CO, CH4, H2O and CO2 to the total
EAC, while the WSGG model only considers the contribution of H2O and CO2. High
absorption coefficient implies that radiation heat transfer will be enhanced, so the
radiation heat transfer in the simulation with the E-EWB model will be stronger than
that in the simulation with the WSGG model. Since the natural gas flame temperature
is higher than the wall temperature, heat loss due to radiation will be enhanced in the
simulation with the E-EWB model. In this work, the radiation heat loss through the
furnace and burner wall in the simulations with the E-EWB model and the WSGG
model are 135.944 kW and 129.007 kW, respectively.
From Figure 4, it can be seen that the axial velocity field obtained by the
simulations with the E-EWB model and the WSGG model are very similar to each
other. Because there exists swirl velocity in the inlet air flow, a relatively strong
counter flow is generated in the zone close to the burner outlet. It can also be seen that
the counter flow generated in the simulation with the E-EWB model is a little stronger
than that predicted in the simulation with the WSGG model. In addition, the shapes of
the injection predicted are also different by the two simulations. The counter flow can
circulate the high-temperature flue gas to the root of the burner to ignite and stabilize
15
Page 15 of 34
Page 16 of 34
From Figure 7, it can be seen that the natural gas flame temperature predicted by
the simulation with the E-EWB model is a little lower than that predicted by the
simulation with the WSGG model and is closer to the measured data. This is because
the absorption coefficient calculated by the E-EWB model is larger than that
calculated with the WSGG model. Thus, the radiation heat transfer from the natural
gas flame to the furnace wall in the simulation with the E-EWB model will be larger
than that in the simulation with the WSGG model and more heat will be lost due to
radiation.
From Figure 8, it can be seen that the mass fraction of O2 decreases along the
axial coordinate. Fresh air is injected into the furnace and transferred to the contour
flow area due to the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the
injection and, at the same time, is heated to a very high temperature and consumed
quickly in the natural gas flame. Small part of O2 brought by the air injection flow
also diffuses to the near wall area where the chemical reactions are much weaker.
Thus, the O2 concentration is the highest in the injection flow and lowest in the
natural gas flame. It can also be seen that the O2 concentration predicted by the
simulation with the E-EWB model is lower than that predicted by the simulation with
the WSGG model near the furnace outlet. This may be because the counter flow is
strong in the simulation with the E-EWB model and more O2 is circulated to the
strong chemical reaction zone and consumed there.
From Figure 9, it can be seen that simulation with the E-EWB model is more
accurate in the prediction of the O2 mass fraction peak value. The simulation result
17
Page 17 of 34
with the WSGG model is prone to over predict the peak, while the simulation with the
E-EWB model is prone to underestimate the O2 mass fraction after the peak.
In addition to evaluating the accuracy of the E-EWB model when it is practically
implemented for the CFD calculation, the efficiency of this model is also tested. In
order to count the time consumed by the two simulations with the E-EWB model and
the WSGG model, an UDF is used to record the Windows system local time. The
difference between the staring time and the time after 100 iterations is considered as
the time consumption samples of the two simulations. It is found that the time
consumption of the simulations with the E-EWB model and the WSGG model are 57
s and 32 s, respectively, which indicates that the calculation speed of the simulation
with the E-EWB model is about 1.8 times slower than that of the simulation with the
WSGG model.
5 Conclusions
A new EAC calculation method, the E-EWB model developed in our lab, is
implemented in the commercial CFD software to simulate the natural gas flame in a
300 kW BERL burner. The calculation results including the axial velocity, the gas
temperature and the mass fraction of O2 obtained by the simulations with the E-EWB
and the WSGG models are analyzed and compared with the measured data. The time
consumption of the two simulations are also compared to evaluate the calculation
efficiency of the E-EWB model. The main contribution of this work to the present
state of knowledge is that the EWB model parameters are renewed and an E-EWB
18
Page 18 of 34
model which is more advanced than the WSGG model and can be practically used in
the CFD calculation is proposed. The conclusions of this work can be drawn as:
1) The absorption coefficient calculated with the E-EWB model is a little higher
than that calculated with the WSGG model especially in the strong reaction zone
near the burner.
2) A relatively strong counter flow is generated in the zone close to the burner outlet.
A stable high temperature zone is generated around the axis of the furnace. The
O2 mass fraction decreases along the axial coordinate and it is the highest in the
injection flow and lowest in the natural gas flame.
3) The axial velocities calculated by the simulations with the E-EWB model and the
WSGG model are very similar and both of them are close to the measured data.
4) The natural gas flame temperature predicted by the simulation with the E-EWB
model is a little lower than that predicted by the simulation with the WSGG
model in the high temperature zone and is closer to the measured data.
5) Simulation with the E-EWB model is more accurate in the prediction of the peak
value of the O2 mass fraction. The simulation with the WSGG model is prone to
over predicting the peak values, while the simulation with the E-EWB model is
prone to underestimating the O2 mass fraction after the peak.
6)
The calculation speed of the simulation with the E-EWB model is about 1.8 times
slower than that of the simulation with the WSGG model in this work.
19
Page 19 of 34
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC, 51176009) and the China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (2015M570096) for this work for this work.
References
[1] S.A. Salarin, M. Shahbaz. Natural gas consumption and economic growth: The
role of foreign direct investment, capital formation and trade openness in
Malaysia. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 42(2015) 835-845.
[2] M.E. Birsselioglu, T. Yelkenci, L.O. Oz. Investigating the natural gas supply
security: A new perspective. Energy 80(2015) 168-176.
[3] C.F. Mason, N.A. Wilmot. Jump processes in natural gas markets. Energy
Economics 46(2014) S69-S79.
[4] L. Iral, A. Amell. Performance study of an induced air porous radiant burner for
household applications at high altitude. Applied Thermal Engineering 2015. (in
press)
[5] B.E. Launder, D.B. Spalding. Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence;
Academic Press: London, U.K., 1972.
[6] T.H. Shih, W.W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, J. Zhu. A New k- Eddy-Viscosity
Model for High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows - Model Development and
Validation. Computer & Fluids 24(1995) 227-238.
[7] B.E. Launder, G.J. Reece, W. Rodi. Progress in the Development of a
Reynolds-Stress Turbulence Closure. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 68(1975)
20
Page 20 of 34
537-566.
[8] B.F. Magnussen. On the structure of turbulence and a generalized eddy
dissipation concept for chemical reaction in turbulent flow; Proceedings of the
19th American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Aerospace
Sciences
Meeting;
St.
Louis,
MO,
Jan
1215,
1981;
http://folk.ntnu.no/ivarse/edc/EDC1981.pdf.
[9] G.P. Smith, D.M. Golden, M. Frenklach, N.W. Moriarty, B. Eiteneer, M.
Goldenberg, C.T. Bowman, R.K. Hanson, S. Song, W.C. Gardiner, J.V. Lissianski,
Z.W. Qin. http://www.me.berkeley.edu/gri_mech/.
[10] N.G. Shah. A new method of computation of radiant heat transfer in combustion
chambers. Ph.D. Dissertation, Imperial College of Science and Technology,
London, U.K., 1979.
[11] P. Cheng. Two-dimensional radiating gas flow by a moment method. AIAA
Journal 2(1964) 16621664.
[12] R. Siegel, J.R. Howell. Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer; Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation: Washington, D.C., 1992.
[13] E.H. Chui, G.D. Raithby. Computation of radiant heat transfer on a
non-orthogonal mesh using the finite-volume method. Numerical Heat Transfer,
Part B 23(1993) 269288.
[14] H.C. Hottel, A.F. Sarofim. Radiative Transfer; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1967.
[15] T. Kangwanongpan, R.C. da Silva, H.J. Krautz. Prediction of oxy-coal
combustion through an optimized weighted sum of gray gases model. Energy 41
21
Page 21 of 34
(2012) 244-251.
[16] C. Yin, L.A. Rosendahl, S.K. Kr. Chemistry and radiation in oxy-fuel
combustion: A computational fluid dynamics modeling study. Fuel 90 (2011)
2519-2529.
[17] G. Krishnamoorthy, M. Sami, S. Orsino, A. Perera, M. Shahnam, E.D. Huckaby.
Radiation modelling in oxy-fuel combustion scenarios. International Journal of
Computational Fluid Dynamics 24 (2010) 69-82.
[18] L.B. Yan, G.X. Yue, B.S. He. Development of an absorption coefficient
calculation method potential for combustion and gasification simulations.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2015. (under review)
[19] S. Tiribuzi A. Gelmini G. Mariotti. 1997. Numerical Simulation of the
BERL 300 kW Natural Gas Flame using KIEN Code. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer. Delft, South
Holland, Netherlands.
[20] P. Nakod, Krishnamoorthy G, Sami M, Orsino S. A comparative evaluation of
gray and non-gray radiation modeling strategies in oxy-coal combustion
simulations. Applied Thermal Engineering 54(2013) 422-432.
[21] C.G. Yin. Refined weighted sum of gray gases model for air-fuel Combustion and
its impacts, Energy & Fuels 27(2013) 6287-6294.
[22] N. Lallermant, A. Sayre, R. Weber. Evaluation of emissivity correlations for
H2O-CO2-N2/air mixtures and coupling with solution methods of the radiative
transfer equation. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 22(1996) 543-574.
22
Page 22 of 34
[23] D.K. Edwards, W.A. Menard. Comparison of models for correlation of total band
absorption. Applied Optics 3(1964) 621-625.
[24] D.K. Edwards, A. Balakrishnan. Thermal radiation by combustion gases.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 16(1973) 25-40.
[25] M.F. Modest. Radiative heat transfer. 2nd ed. California: Academic Press, 2003.
[26] T.F. Smith, Z.F. Shen, J.N. Friedman. Evaluation of Coefficients for the Weighted
Sum of Gray Gases Model. Journal of Heat Transfer 104(1982) 602-608.
[27] C.G. Yin, L.C.R. Johansen, L.A. Rosendahl, S.K. Kr. New weighted sum of
gray gases model applicable to computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling of
oxy-Fuel combustion: derivation, validation, and implementation. Energy &
Fuels 24(2010) 6275-6282.
[28] Fluent, Inc. FLUENT6.3-Users Guide; Fluent, Inc.: New York, 2006.
[29] J.P. Jones, R.P. Lindstedt. Global reaction schemes for hydrocarbon combustion.
Combustion and Flame 73(1988) 233-249.
[30] A. Sayre, N. Lallemant, J. Dugu, R. Weber. Scaling Characteristics of
Aerodynamics and Low-NOx Properties of Industrial Natural Gas Burners, The
SCALING 400 Study, Part IV: The 300 kW BERL Test Results, IFRF Doc No
F40/y/11, International Flame Research Foundation, The Netherlands, 1994.
23
Page 23 of 34
Figure captions:
Figure 1. Geometry and mesh of the natural gas combustion furnace
Figure 2. Comparisons of the results obtained from three sets of meshes
Figure 3. Radial distribution profiles of radiation absorption coefficient at the
four locations off the quarl exit
Figure 4. Axial velocity contours of the simulations with the E-EWB and the
WSGG models
Figure 5. Radial distribution profiles of the axial velocity at the four locations off
the quarl exit
Figure 6. Temperature contours of the simulations with the E-EWB and the
WSGG models
Figure 7. Radial distribution profiles of gas temperatures at the four locations off
the quarl exit
Figure 8. O2 mass fraction contours of the simulations with the E-EWB and the
WSGG models
Figure 9. Radial distribution profiles of O2 mass fraction at the four locations off
the quarl exit
Table captions:
Table 1 Polynomial coefficients for in(T) in the temperature range of 300 K-500 K
b0
b1
b2
1.49E+02
-5.46E-01
5.65E-04
,1 6 0 0
2.31E+04
-9.69E+01
1.03E-01
2O
,3 7 6 0
2.49E+01
-2.60E-04
3.86E-07
2O
,5 3 5 0
3.05E+00
-3.38E-04
6.01E-07
2O
,7 2 5 0
2.50E+00
-3.53E-06
5.15E-09
2 O ,1 4 0
2O
H
H
H
CO
,6 6 7
9.98E-01
2.32E-01
-4.19E-04
CO
,9 6 0
1.33E-02
-1.02E-04
2.06E-07
CO
,1 0 6 0
1.34E-02
-1.04E-04
2.08E-07
CO
,2 4 1 0
9.06E+04
-3.87E+02
4.18E-01
24
Page 24 of 34
CO
,3 6 6 0
4.11E+00
-7.91E-04
1.50E-06
CO
,5 2 0 0
6.95E-02
-2.55E-05
4.85E-08
C O ,2 1 4 3
1.22E+02
-4.89E-01
5.43E-04
C O ,4 2 6 0
1.42E-01
-1.10E-05
1.74E-08
CH
,4 2 2 0
2.97E+00
-5.56E-04
1.10E-06
CH
,5 8 6 1
4.39E-01
-1.41E-04
2.67E-07
Table 2 Polynomial coefficients for in(T) in the temperature range of 300 K-500 K
b0
b1
b2
,1 4 0
1.37E-01
-2.34E-04
1.76E-07
2O
,1 6 0 0
8.75E-02
-1.55E-04
1.87E-07
2O
,3 7 6 0
2.24E-01
-4.00E-04
4.42E-07
2O
,5 3 5 0
7.62E-02
-1.37E-04
1.67E-07
2O
,7 2 5 0
1.10E-01
-1.96E-04
2.16E-07
2O
CO
,6 6 7
5.59E-02
-8.18E-05
4.64E-07
CO
,9 6 0
5.02E-02
-1.42E-04
4.02E-07
CO
,1 0 6 0
1.08E-01
-1.82E-04
8.53E-07
CO
,2 4 1 0
2.38E-01
-4.18E-04
1.70E-06
25
Page 25 of 34
CO
,3 6 6 0
1.24E-01
-2.38E-04
1.06E-06
CO
,5 2 0 0
4.53E-01
-1.30E-03
4.27E-06
C O ,2 4 1 3
7.20E-02
-1.31E-04
1.28E-07
C O ,4 2 6 0
1.61E-01
-3.00E-04
3.06E-07
CH
,1 3 1 0
9.66E-02
-2.84E-04
5.89E-07
CH
,3 0 2 0
7.64E-02
-2.17E-04
4.34E-07
CH
,4 2 2 0
4.06E-01
-1.24E-03
2.53E-06
CH
,5 8 6 1
8.30E-01
-2.72E-03
5.59E-06
Table 3 Polynomial coefficients for in(T) in the temperature range of 500 K-2000 K
H
2O
b0
b1
b2
b3
b4
b5
b6
b7
b8
b9
,1 4 0
-28119.6
199.5666
-0.53632
0.0007868
-6.72E-07
3.303E-10
-8.6E-14
9.26E-18
--
--
594.3822
-4.39809
0.013095
-2.02E-05
1.769E-08
-8.89E-12
2.38E-15
-2.62E-19
--
--
2O
,1 6 0 0
2O
,3 7 6 0
24.90321
-6.5E-05
4.75E-08
1.718E-10
-2.12E-13
1.141E-16
-3.1E-20
3.3613E-24
--
--
2O
,5 3 5 0
3.104651
-0.00055
6.09E-07
7.648E-10
-9.68E-13
5.106E-16
-1.4E-19
1.4812E-23
--
--
2O
,7 2 5 0
2.495858
-2.7E-05
3.03E-07
-8.77E-10
1.102E-12
-6.27E-16
1.74E-19
-1.929E-23
0.030733
-5.7E-05
6.82E-08
-5.3E-11
2.71E-14
-8.7E-18
1.6E-21
-1.3E-25
CO
,6 6 7
CO
,9 6 0
0.069745
-0.0005
1.24E-06
-1.25E-09
7.304E-13
-2.53E-16
4.83E-20
-3.91E-24
--
--
0.070363
-0.0005
1.25E-06
-1.25E-09
7.318E-13
-2.54E-16
4.87E-20
-3.97E-24
--
--
0.16175
-0.000205
1.544E-07
-6.86E-11
1.66E-14
-1.7E-18
--
--
CO
,1 0 6 0
CO
,2 4 1 0
1300.236
14692.34
-9.50528
-71.3231
26
Page 26 of 34
CO
,3 6 6 0
4.162493
-0.00089
8.28E-07
2.395E-09
-2.8E-12
1.442E-15
-3.7E-19
3.968E-23
--
--
CO
,5 2 0 0
0.072587
-4.2E-05
7.55E-08
-1.17E-11
-7.33E-15
7.894E-18
-2.7E-21
3.396E-25
--
--
-4.4E-11
-2.37E-15
5.36E-18
-9.9E-22
--
--
C O ,2 1 4 3
-2.62492
0.086348
-0.000162
1.317E-07
C O ,4 2 6 0
0.134803
5.227E-05
-1.97E-07
3.39E-10
-2.7E-13
1.206E-16
-2.9E-20
2.92E-24
--
--
CH
,4 2 2 0
3.049165
-0.001
1.99E-06
-5.8E-10
-7.6E-14
1.25E-16
-4.1E-20
4.71E-24
--
--
CH
,5 8 6 1
0.459851
-0.00025
4.75E-07
-1.4E-10
1.1E-14
2.23E-17
-1E-20
1.38E-24
--
--
Table 4 Polynomial coefficients for in(T) in the temperature range of 500 K-2000 K
b0
H
2O
b1
b2
b3
b4
b5
b6
b7
,1 4 0
0.143246
-0.00033
5.63E-07
-6.1E-10
4.222E-13
-1.77E-16
4.152E-20
-4.1E-24
2O
,1 6 0 0
0.087998
-0.00021
4.53E-07
-4.7E-10
3.452E-13
-1.49E-16
3.564E-20
-3.6E-24
2O
,3 7 6 0
0.224847
-0.00051
1.01E-06
-9.9E-10
6.943E-13
-2.83E-16
6.426E-20
-6.2E-24
2O
,5 3 5 0
0.077023
-0.00018
3.94E-07
-4E-10
2.98E-13
-1.26E-16
2.916E-20
-2.9E-24
2O
,7 2 5 0
0.113097
-0.00027
5.34E-07
-5.3E-10
3.879E-13
-1.62E-16
3.749E-20
-3.7E-24
CO
,6 6 7
3.83E-02
3.51E-05
2.09E-07
1.78E-10
1.35E-14
-2.3E-17
7.7E-21
-9.4E-25
CO
,9 6 0
2.60E-02
1.34E-05
1.06E-07
1.16E-10
1.04E-13
-5.8E-17
1.46E-20
-1.5E-24
CO
,1 0 6 0
7.93E-02
2.47E-05
3.54E-07
2.82E-10
3.6E-13
-2E-16
5.01E-20
-5.2E-24
CO
,2 4 1 0
1.65E-01
7.43E-05
6.19E-07
6.63E-10
3.37E-13
-2.3E-16
6.4E-20
-6.9E-24
27
Page 27 of 34
CO
,3 6 6 0
8.74E-02
3.36E-05
3.8E-07
4.36E-10
4.31E-13
-2.7E-16
7.08E-20
-7.5E-24
CO
,5 2 0 0
2.40E-01
1.88E-04
8.91E-07
1.95E-09
1.59E-12
-1E-15
2.78E-19
-3E-23
C O ,2 4 1 3
0.0796287
-0.000223
4.67E-07
-5.21E-10
3.58E-13
-1.5E-16
3.49E-20
-3.5E-24
C O ,4 2 6 0
0.1805136
-0.000522
1.12E-06
-1.23E-09
8.38E-13
-3.5E-16
8.06E-20
-8E-24
CH
,1 3 1 0
0.081379
-0.00023
7.25E-07
-7.2E-10
8.13E-13
-1.7E-16
2.59E-20
-2E-24
CH
,3 0 2 0
0.066498
-0.00019
5.68E-07
-5.7E-10
5.88E-13
-9E-17
8.44E-21
-2.8E-25
CH
,4 2 2 0
0.340122
-0.001
3.01E-06
-2.8E-09
2.93E-12
-4.7E-17
-6.6E-20
9.28E-24
CH
,5 8 6 1
0.683294
-0.00215
6.5E-06
-6.1E-09
6.23E-12
4.61E-16
-3.2E-19
3.99E-23
Table 5 Polynomial coefficients for in(T) in the temperature range of 2000 K-2500 K
b0
H
2O
b1
b2
b3
b4
,1 4 0
-1.73E+05
2.98E+02
-1.91E-01
5.44E-05
-5.87E-09
2O
,1 6 0 0
1.78E+03
-2.81E+00
1.73E-03
-4.81E-07
5.04E-11
2O
,3 7 6 0
2.49E+01
3.20E-05
6.02E-08
-1.37E-11
1.25E-15
2O
,5 3 5 0
2.83E+00
-9.59E-05
7.38E-07
-1.46E-10
1.19E-14
2O
,7 2 5 0
2.83E+00
-7.76E-04
5.75E-07
-1.03E-10
7.71E-15
CO
,6 6 7
-3.36E+05
5.95E+02
-3.93E-01
1.16E-04
-1.27E-08
CO
,9 6 0
-1.13E-01
2.48E-04
-6.03E-08
1.11E-11
-8.33E-16
CO
,1 0 6 0
-1.19E-01
2.60E-04
-6.66E-08
1.29E-11
-1.04E-15
CO
,2 4 1 0
5.85E+04
-1.02E+02
6.74E-02
-1.98E-05
2.17E-09
28
Page 28 of 34
CO
,3 6 6 0
3.31E+00
5.56E-04
1.11E-06
-2.37E-10
2.04E-14
CO
,5 2 0 0
5.29E-02
5.22E-06
3.22E-08
1.72E-12
-2.08E-16
C O ,2 1 4 3
-9.29E+01
1.86E-01
-1.26E-04
3.75E-08
-4.17E-12
C O ,4 2 6 0
1.31E-01
-1.44E-05
4.42E-08
-9.52E-12
8.33E-16
CH
,4 2 2 0
2.49E+00
3.36E-04
7.64E-07
-1.58E-10
1.33E-14
CH
,5 8 6 1
3.98E-01
-5.69E-05
2.32E-07
-8.24E-12
8.33E-16
Table 6 Polynomial coefficients for in(T) in the temperature range of 2000 K-2500 K
b0
H
2O
b1
b2
b3
b4
,1 4 0
6.51E-02
-2.81E-05
7.25E-09
-7.41E-13
-6.48E-27
2O
,1 6 0 0
1.09E-02
5.49E-05
-6.04E-10
2.83E-11
-2.08E-15
2O
,3 7 6 0
1.43E-01
-7.99E-05
1.11E-07
3.76E-11
2.01E-26
2O
,5 3 5 0
6.68E-02
-5.39E-05
6.05E-08
1.54E-11
-2.87E-26
2O
,7 2 5 0
-7.21E-02
2.17E-04
-1.26E-07
8.00E-11
-6.25E-15
CO
,6 6 7
1.24E-01
-1.67E-04
3.92E-07
1.17E-10
-4.17E-15
CO
,9 6 0
1.77E-02
1.48E-05
6.54E-08
2.30E-10
-1.25E-14
CO
,1 0 6 0
3.09E-01
-4.13E-04
4.97E-07
5.91E-10
-2.71E-14
CO
,2 4 1 0
6.22E-01
-9.42E-04
1.35E-06
7.04E-10
-3.13E-14
29
Page 29 of 34
CO
,3 6 6 0
5.88E-01
-1.01E-03
1.03E-06
6.11E-10
-2.71E-14
CO
,5 2 0 0
2.21E+00
-4.09E-03
3.79E-06
2.36E-09
-1.10E-13
C O ,2 4 1 3
-8.29E-02
2.09E-04
-1.26E-07
3.73E-11
-4.17E-15
C O ,4 2 6 0
7.79E-02
-5.15E-06
5.21E-08
-1.79E-11
2.08E-15
CH
,1 3 1 0
-8.64E-01
2.25E-03
-2.06E-06
1.02E-09
1.40E-13
CH
,3 0 2 0
-9.42E-01
2.32E-03
-2.05E-06
9.16E-10
1.04E-13
CH
,4 2 2 0
-7.30E+00
1.73E-02
-1.48E-05
5.84E-09
9.42E-13
CH
,5 8 6 1
-1.87E+01
4.44E-02
-3.83E-05
1.48E-08
2.31E-12
Reactions
E (J/kmol)
CH4+0.5O2=CO+2H2
CH4+H2O=CO+3H2
H2+0.5O2=H2O
CO+H2O=CO2+H2
4.4e14
3.0e11
2.5e19
2.75e12
1.9955e8
1.9955e8
2.6606e8
1.3303e8
0
0
-1
0
30
Page 30 of 34
Mole Fraction
CH4
N2
C2H 6
C3H 8
C4H10
CO2
0.965
0.013
0.017
0.001
0.001
0.003
31
Page 31 of 34
Temperature (K)
Emissivity
312
1173
1173
1273
1100
profile
1305
1370
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
32
Page 32 of 34
Air
Natural Gas
31.35
profile
0
20.97
profile
312
17
0.0076
0
0
157.25
0
0
308
5
0.0009
33
Page 33 of 34
34
Page 34 of 34