SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Politeknik Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of the Numerical Models for the Temperature Distributions of Non-Premixed Swirling Methane Flame

Güven TUNÇ
İLKER YILMAZ
Pages
819–826
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that to define the swirl number as a user-defined function in the comparison tests has not been an important effect to obtain good agreement with the experimental temperature distribution data.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to investigate the numerical modelling parameters that are in good agreement with experimental data for the temperature distribution of a non-premixed swirling methane flame.
📊
Key Findings & Data:P-1 radiation model has been chosen for all numerical calculations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that to define the swirl number as a user-defined function in the comparison tests has not been an important effect to obtain good agreement with the experimental temperature distribution data.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:User-defined function · numerical modelling · methane

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the numerical modelling parameters that are in good agreement with experimental data for the temperature distribution of a non-premixed swirling methane flame. All numerical calculations have been performed with FLUENT, a computational fluid dynamics code. P-1 radiation model has been chosen for all numerical calculations. In addition, the swirl number has been taken 0.4 value to validate the results with respect to reference experimental data. All comparisons have been performed in axial and radial temperature distributions according to experimental data. Firstly, the number of swirl has been defined as a user-defined function. Thus, the effect of defining user-defined functions has been examined in the swirl number. Secondly, the model constant (A) of the eddy dissipation combustion model has been investigated to determine suitable value. After that, the eddy dissipation and PDF mixture fraction combustion models have been compared with each other. Finally, k-ε standard, realizable and RNG models have been analyzed to determine the proper turbulence model. The results showed that to define the swirl number as a user-defined function in the comparison tests has not been an important effect to obtain good agreement with the experimental temperature distribution data. It has been found that the value of one for the Eddy dissipation model constant is suitable for this model. It has also been found that the experimental results in both combustion models give approximate results, but the PDF model is particularly better at axial temperature distribution. Moreover, it has been seen that the k-ε realizable turbulence model is more suitable for this model.

Özet

This study aimed to investigate the numerical modelling parameters that are in good agreement with experimental data for the temperature distribution of a non-premixed swirling methane flame. All numerical calculations have been performed with FLUENT, a computational fluid dynamics code. P-1 radiation model has been chosen for all numerical calculations. In addition, the swirl number has been taken 0.4 value to validate the results with respect to reference experimental data. All comparisons have been performed in axial and radial temperature distributions according to experimental data. Firstly, the number of swirl has been defined as a user-defined function. Thus, the effect of defining user-defined functions has been examined in the swirl number. Secondly, the model constant (A) of the eddy dissipation combustion model has been investigated to determine suitable value. After that, the eddy dissipation and PDF mixture fraction combustion models have been compared with each other. Finally, k-ε standard, realizable and RNG models have been analyzed to determine the proper turbulence model. The results showed that to define the swirl number as a user-defined function in the comparison tests has not been an important effect to obtain good agreement with the experimental temperature distribution data. It has been found that the value of one for the Eddy dissipation model constant is suitable for this model. It has also been found that the experimental results in both combustion models give approximate results, but the PDF model is particularly better at axial temperature distribution. Moreover, it has been seen that the k-ε realizable turbulence model is more suitable for this model.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUNÇ, G., YILMAZ, İ. (2019). Comparison of the Numerical Models for the Temperature Distributions of Non-Premixed Swirling Methane Flame. Politeknik Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 4, 819–826. https://ajindex.com/articles/306413

References (11)

  1. Wilkes, N. S., Guilbert, P. W., Shepherd, C. M., and Simcox, S., “The Application of Harwell-Flow 3D to Combustion Models,” Atomic Energy Authority Report, Harwell, UK, Paper No. AERE-R13508, (1989
  2. Song, G., Bjørge, T., Holen, J., & Magnussen, B. F. “Simulation of fluid flow and gaseous radiation heat transfer in a natural gas-fired furnace.” International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, 7(2/3), 169-180. (1997)
  3. Chen, R. H. “A parametric study of NO2 emission from turbulent H2 and CH4 jet diffusion flames.” Combustion and flame, 112(1-2), 188-198, (1998)
  4. Ma, C. Y., Mahmud, T., Gaskell, P. H., & Hampartsoumian, E. “Numerical predictions of a turbulent diffusion flame in a cylindrical combustor using eddy dissipation and flamelet combustion models.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 213(7), 697-705., (1999)
  5. Morvan, D., Porterie, B., Loraud, J. C., & Larini, M. “Numerical simulation of a methane/air radiating turbulent diffusion flame.” International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, 10(2), 196-227., (2000)
  6. Keramida, E. P., Liakos, H. H., Founti, M. A., Boudouvis, A. G., & Markatos, N. C. “The discrete transfer radiation model in a natural gas‐fired furnace. International journal for numerical methods in fluids,” 34(5), 449-462., (2000)
  7. Ilbas, M., Crayford, A. P., Yılmaz, I., Bowen, P. J., & Syred, N. “Laminar-burning velocities of hydrogen–air and hydrogen–methane–air mixtures: an experimental study.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 31(12), 1768-1779, (2006)
  8. Park, J., Keel, S. I., & Yun, J. H. “Addition effects of H2 and H2O on flame structure and pollutant emissions in methane–air diffusion flame”. Energy & Fuels, 21(6), 3216-3224, (2007)
  9. Khelil, A., Naji, H., Loukarfi, L., and Mompean, G., “Prediction of a High Swirled Natural Gas Diffusion Flame Using a PDF Model,” Fuel, 88, pp. 374–381, (2009), 10. Hu, E., Huang, Z., Zheng, J., Li, Q., & He, J. “Numerical study on laminar burning velocity and NO formation of premixed methane–hydrogen–air flames”, International journal of hydrogen energy, 34(15), 6545-6557, (2009)
  10. Liu, H., Dong, S., Li, B. W., & Chen, H. G., “Parametric investigations of premixed methane–air combustion in two-section porous media by numerical simulation.”, Fuel, 89(7), 1736-1742, (2010)
  11. Bhadraiah, K., & Raghavan, V. “Numerical simulation of laminar co-flow methane–oxygen diffu