Advanced

Challenging modeling strategies for LES of non-adiabatic turbulent stratified combustion

Fiorina, B.; Mercier, R.; Kuenne, G.; Ketelheun, A.; Avdic, A.; Janicka, J.; Geyer, D.; Dreizler, A.; Alenius, Emma LU and Duwig, Christophe LU , et al. (2015) In Combustion and Flame 162(11). p.4264-4282
Abstract
Five different low-Mach large eddy simulations are compared to the turbulent stratified flame experiments conducted at the Technical University of Darmstadt (TUD). The simulations were contributed by TUD, the Institute for Combustion Technology (ITV) at Aachen, Lund University (LUND), the EM2C laboratory at Ecole Centrale Paris, and the University of Duisburg-Essen (UDE). Combustion is modeled by a premixed flamelet tabulation with local flame thickening (TUD), a premixed flamelet progress variable approach coupled to a level set method (ITV), a 4-steps mechanism combined with implicit LES (LUND), the F-TACLES model that is based on filtered premixed flamelet tabulation (EM2C), and a flame surface density approach (UDE). An extensive... (More)
Five different low-Mach large eddy simulations are compared to the turbulent stratified flame experiments conducted at the Technical University of Darmstadt (TUD). The simulations were contributed by TUD, the Institute for Combustion Technology (ITV) at Aachen, Lund University (LUND), the EM2C laboratory at Ecole Centrale Paris, and the University of Duisburg-Essen (UDE). Combustion is modeled by a premixed flamelet tabulation with local flame thickening (TUD), a premixed flamelet progress variable approach coupled to a level set method (ITV), a 4-steps mechanism combined with implicit LES (LUND), the F-TACLES model that is based on filtered premixed flamelet tabulation (EM2C), and a flame surface density approach (UDE). An extensive comparison of simulation and experimental data is presented for the first two moments of velocity, temperature, mixture fraction, and major species mass fractions. The importance of heat-losses was assessed by comparing simulations for adiabatic and isothermal boundary conditions at the burner walls. The adiabatic computations predict a flame anchored on the burner lip, while the non-adiabatic simulations show a flame lift-off of one half pilot diameter and a better agreement with experimental evidence for temperature and species concentrations. Most simulations agree on the mean flame brush position, but it is evident that subgrid turbulence must be considered to achieve the correct turbulent flame speed. Qualitative comparisons of instantaneous snapshots of the flame show differences in the size of the resolved flame wrinkling patterns. These differences are (a) caused by the influence of the LES combustion model on the flame dynamics and (b) by the different simulation strategies in terms of grid, inlet condition and numerics. The simulations were conducted with approaches optimized for different objectives, for example low computational cost, or in another case, short turn around. (C) 2015 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Model comparison, Non-adiabatic, Heat losses, chemistry, Tabulated, Turbulent stratified combustion, Large Eddy Simulation
in
Combustion and Flame
volume
162
issue
11
pages
4264 - 4282
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • wos:000363998300017
  • scopus:84940688872
ISSN
0010-2180
DOI
10.1016/j.combustflame.2015.07.036
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
79f6ab81-6532-4bbd-9b8c-6b4407e1c975 (old id 8389384)
date added to LUP
2015-12-21 13:38:08
date last changed
2017-01-01 05:39:36
@article{79f6ab81-6532-4bbd-9b8c-6b4407e1c975,
  abstract     = {Five different low-Mach large eddy simulations are compared to the turbulent stratified flame experiments conducted at the Technical University of Darmstadt (TUD). The simulations were contributed by TUD, the Institute for Combustion Technology (ITV) at Aachen, Lund University (LUND), the EM2C laboratory at Ecole Centrale Paris, and the University of Duisburg-Essen (UDE). Combustion is modeled by a premixed flamelet tabulation with local flame thickening (TUD), a premixed flamelet progress variable approach coupled to a level set method (ITV), a 4-steps mechanism combined with implicit LES (LUND), the F-TACLES model that is based on filtered premixed flamelet tabulation (EM2C), and a flame surface density approach (UDE). An extensive comparison of simulation and experimental data is presented for the first two moments of velocity, temperature, mixture fraction, and major species mass fractions. The importance of heat-losses was assessed by comparing simulations for adiabatic and isothermal boundary conditions at the burner walls. The adiabatic computations predict a flame anchored on the burner lip, while the non-adiabatic simulations show a flame lift-off of one half pilot diameter and a better agreement with experimental evidence for temperature and species concentrations. Most simulations agree on the mean flame brush position, but it is evident that subgrid turbulence must be considered to achieve the correct turbulent flame speed. Qualitative comparisons of instantaneous snapshots of the flame show differences in the size of the resolved flame wrinkling patterns. These differences are (a) caused by the influence of the LES combustion model on the flame dynamics and (b) by the different simulation strategies in terms of grid, inlet condition and numerics. The simulations were conducted with approaches optimized for different objectives, for example low computational cost, or in another case, short turn around. (C) 2015 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
  author       = {Fiorina, B. and Mercier, R. and Kuenne, G. and Ketelheun, A. and Avdic, A. and Janicka, J. and Geyer, D. and Dreizler, A. and Alenius, Emma and Duwig, Christophe and Trisjono, P. and Kleinheinz, K. and Kang, S. and Pitsch, H. and Proch, F. and Marincola, F. Cavallo and Kempf, A.},
  issn         = {0010-2180},
  keyword      = {Model comparison,Non-adiabatic,Heat losses,chemistry,Tabulated,Turbulent stratified combustion,Large Eddy Simulation},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {11},
  pages        = {4264--4282},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Combustion and Flame},
  title        = {Challenging modeling strategies for LES of non-adiabatic turbulent stratified combustion},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2015.07.036},
  volume       = {162},
  year         = {2015},
}