Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FLUENT/UNS
Rajesh Nair
Fluent Inc.,
10 Cavendish Ct.
Lebanon, NH 03766
Abstract
Results for the swirling , un-staged , 300 kW BERL natural gas flam e have been obtained using the CFD code
FLUENT fUNS. The solver is based on a fully unstructured finite volume scheme. The predictions have been
compared to those obtained using the structured solver FLUENT . Some comparisions with measurements are
also made. 'IUrbulence is modeled by means of the standard k - f model. Two different models to describe the
turbulence chemistry interaction have been considered : i) a conserved scalar pdf model, ii) the Magnussen-Hjertager
eddy breakup model. For the first sub-model, the f3 probability density function is used, while the second uses
eit her a single step reaction scheme or a two-step reaction scheme. Radiation is computed using the P-l differential
approximation and the WSGGM (Weighted Sum of Gray Gases Model) is used to calculate the radiative properties .
Comparison of velocities, temperature and species concentrations for both FLUENT and FLUENT/UNS using the
conserved scalar pdf model have been made at three stations downstream of the quarl. Predictions of velocities,
t emp erature and species using the different schemes (pdf, Magnussen single step, and Magnussen two-step) are
also compared to experimental data at some stations.
Introduction
Numerical modeling of natural gas combustion is a complex phenomenon influenced by a large number of interacting
processes. Comprehensive testing and validation is necessary to establish the range of applicability and level of
confidence in commercial CFD codes that can eventually be used for design of industrial burners. This task is
often made difficult by the lack of data from suitable benchmark industrial problems. The present work resulted
from validation studies carried out at Fluent Inc. for the experiments conducted at the Burner Engineering
Research Laborat.ory (BERL) as part of the "Scaling 400" study, whereby experimental measurements were taken
for combust.ors ranging in size from 300 kW to 12 MW. This particular study deals with an unstaged 300 kW ,
nat.ural gas flame . Data from the experiments were collected by Sayre et al. and are published in [1].The quality
of t.he present. benchmark[l] is deemed to be excellent insofar as the geometry and flow boundary conditions are
well defined . Besides, the extensive measurements are well suited for code validation .
Objectives
FLUENT/UNS is a general purpose CFD code that was released in June 1996. It offers several advantages over
conyent.ional codes t.hat are based on a structured framework, for instance, decreasing time used in setting up the
geometry and grid, allowing adaption to evolving solutions to capture high gradients, true dynamic allocation of
memory and parallel processing. This paper is part of a two-step internal project: (i) Compare FLUENT/UNS
predictions wit.h experimental data and previously obtained predictions for the 2-d axisymmetric case using FL UENT (ii) Compare predictions obtained from full 3-d simulations against experimental data. This paper reports
t.he progress made toward the first part of the project.
The principal purpose of this study was to validate predictions obtained by using a new unstructured solver ,
FL UENT/UNS , against predictions made by a structured solver, FLUENT. This was to ensure that the new solver
could be used for similar applications with the same reliability that characterized the structured solver. Further ,
some comparisons were also made with appropriate in-flame measurements at various stations in the furnace. The
objective is not to describe any new model of turbulence-chemistry interaction or combustion , but to validate
existing models available in the literature and implemented in FLUENT/UNS.
Problem Description
The flame considered is unstaged natural gas fired in a 300 k W swirl-stabilized burner (Figure 1). The furnace
is vertically fired and of octagonal cross-section, with a conical furnace hood and cylindrical exhaust duct. The
furnace wall may either be lined with refractory material or water-cooled. The burner features 24 radial fuel
1
injection holes and a bluff centerbody. Air is introduced through an annular inlet and moveable swirl blocks are
used to impart swirl. A detailed description of the geometry is available in [1].
Two configurations were considered during experiments, one with water cooled furnace walls, and the other
with the furnace wall lined with refractory. The current study presents results only for the case with the refractory
lining , i.e., the so-called "hot-wall" configuration. The problem was modeled as axi-symmetric, and appropriate
area adjustments were made to account for the 2D representation of an inherently 3D problem . A close-up view of
the furnace quarl area is shown in Figure 2. Care was taken to ensure that the cross-sectional areas of the modeled
furnace and real furnace remained the same. It is worthwhile studying the axisymmetric model before embarking
on the more complicated and time consuming 3D modeling effort. The wall thermal conditions for the hot-wall
configuration are given in Table 1. [1]
Boundary
Walls near the inlet ducts
Bluff body front wall
Inlet duct insert (oblique)
Quarl wall (oblique)
Furnace bottom wall
Furnace cylinder wall (hot)
Furnace top wall (hood)
Chimney wall
Temperature (K)
312
1173
1173
1273
1100
profile
1305
1370
Emissivity
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
T(x) = ao
where 0
~ x ~
(1)
1.65 m is the position along the wall and the coefficients ai are given in Table 2.
ao
al
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
1.257 x 10 J
-2.1777 x10 J
9.93349 x 10 J
-1.74799 x10 4
1.46151 x 104
-5.83885 x 103
8.98612 X 10 2
Table 2: Coefficient.s of the Temperature Profile along the Furnace Cylinder Wall in the "Hot-Wall" Configuration
Formulation
The st.eady-state. Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations for mass, momentum, energy and scalar transport
are used to describe the flow physics. The density is obtained using the ideal gas law. The standard k - f turbulence
closure model was considered appropriate because of the relatively low inlet swirl (swirl number=0.56). Also, for
combusting flows. the swirling inlet flow is accelerated due to combustion and the importance of the centrifugal
forces due to swirl decreases vis a vis the inertial forces [2]. The two different models used for turbulent combustion
are now described briefly.
2
Air
0
0
0.7685
0.2315
of "fuel"
of CO 2
of N2
of O 2
Fuel Mixture
0.97
0.008
0.022
0
Table 3: Mass Fractions in the Inlet Flows for the Eddy Breakup Model
Species
ao
al
a2
a3
a4
as
a6
CO 2
5.35446e+02
6.39334e-01
-1.8225ge-04
-5.9556e-08
3.78408e-11
H2O
1.9378e+03
-5.90386e-01
1.2145e-03
-7.1582e-07
1.5191e-10
O2
8.7632e+02
6.1414e-02
1.8610e-04
-3.0062e-07
2.2948e-10
-8.5396e-14
1.2237e-17
Table 4: Coefficients of the Polynomial Function Defining the Specific Heat Capacities of the Species
The source and the sink terms in the chemical species transport equations are computed according to the
Magnussen model. Here, the rates and formation and destruction of the chemical species considered are related to
eddy dissipation rate. The reaction rate is computed to be the minimum of the kinetic and the mixing rates as
described by Magnussen and Hjertager[3]. No modifications were made to the values of the mixing rate coefficients
A and B originally suggested, i.e., A = 4 and B = 0.5. The combustion reaction for the single step scheme was
described according to:
fuel + 2.0330 2 ---4 1.022C0 2 + 2.022H 2 0
(2)
For the two-step scheme, the reaction was described by:
fuel
+ 1.5220 2
---4
1.022CO + 2.022H 2 0
(3)
(4)
a scheme takes into account dissociation into multiple species and the effects of such dissociation on specific heat
capacities of the mixture, a phenomenon that is difficult to simulate when using the Magnussen model. Also , unlike
the Magnussen model , it does not require adjusting of model constants . The disadvantages primarily rest in the
fact that when finite rate chemistry effects are very important (i.e., when the reaction and mixing time scales are
of the same order), the scheme does not predict the correct behavior.
In the pdf model, the instantaneous thermochemical state of the fluid is related to a single conserved scalar
quantity, namely, the mixture fraction f, defined by
(5)
where Zk is the element mass fraction for some element, k. Subscript 0 refers to the value at the oxidizer stream
inlets and subscript F refers to the value at the fuel stream inlets. Then, for any <Pi, where <Pi can represent
instantaneously, temperature or concentration of any desired species,
(6)
and
<Pi
= [P(f)<Pi(f)d/
(7)
where p(f) represents the probability density function for the scalar f.
For this relationship to hold, the requirements necessary are: (i) the flame must be of the diffusion type, with
separate fuel and oxidizer inlets (ii) the system should be adiabatic and incompressible and (iii) the Lewis number
must be unity. vVhen the flame is non-adiabatic, the influences of heat loss on turbulent enthalpy fluctuations are
ignored, and averaging is done by assuming that <Pi = <Pi(!, Ii), where Ii is the time mean enthalpy. A {3 pdf shape
is assumed for the probability distribution function, and equilibrium chemistry is used with a partial equilibrium
mL'\."t.ure fraction limit of 0.064, the assumption being that equilibrium exists upto this near-stoichiometric value
of the mixture fraction. Chemical equilibrium is computed by means of an algorithm for Gibbs' free energy
minimization. Thirteen (13) species and radicals were assumed to exist in the equilibrium mixture, namely, CH 4 ,
C 2 H6 1 C 3 Hg , C 4 H lO , CO 2 , N 2 , O 2 , CO, H2 0, H2 , OH, Hand O. The so-called "look-up" table is computed once,
and this allows the solver to interpolate for the desired species concentrations from the table as a function of
the mixture fraction, mixture fraction variance, and enthalpy. The adiabatic flame temperature at atmospheric
pressure and inlet fuel and air temperatures of 312 K was predicted to be 2200 K at stoichiometry.
Numerical Procedure
FLUENT/UNS uses a general collocated finite volume scheme, where the cells can be arbitrary unstructured
convex polyhedra. Quadrilateral, hexahedral, triangular, tetrahedral or prismatic cells may be used. The transport
variables are stored at cell centers, thereby ensuring conservation for arbitrary control volumes. The discretization
scheme used is second order accurate, the pressure-velocity coupling is handled using the SIMPLE algorithm and the
solution procedure uses a variant of the multigrid procedure detailed in Hutchinson and Raithby[4]. Specifications
set out in the benchmark experiments for the inlet air velocity profiles and wall temperatures were followed when
setting boundary conditions.
The computational grid is a non-orthogonal quadrilateral grid containing 100 by 183 nodes in the radial and
axial directions respectively (9784 quadrilateral cells). Appropriate clustering of nodes is observed in the quarl
region as well as near the centerline (Figure 3). For the structured solution, a total of 18300 cells were used, thus
FL -ENT/UNS allowed the same solution with half the memory usage. A unique feature available in FLUENT/UNS
is the capability of solution adaption, whereby one may adapt/refine the grid to gradients of any desired variable.
This is extremely useful when resolving high gradients locally, instead of carrying unnecessary baggage in the form
of grid points at. places where they may not be necessary as would be the case in a structured solver. (Figure 4)
equilibrium, conserved scalar pdf model. This work formed the first part of a two step internal project to validate
the new unstructured solver against experimental data. Predictions obtained from the unstructured solver are seen
to match those from the structured solver very well. Predictions are also seen to be in relatively good agreement
with experimental results. Some of the differences seen in comparisons to experimental results are due to modeling
the 3-D problem as axisymmetric. This study provided the first step to comprehensive validation of a new tool.
The single step chemistry model was observed to be not as accurate or comprehensive with respect to information
as the two-step and the pdf models. Therefore, only the two-step chemistry and the pdf models will be analyzed
in the second part of the project. The next step will be to simulate the full 3-D problem along with a comparison
of the performance of the different combustion models that are available. A full comparison of predicted species
concentrations with experimental data will also be carried out.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the prior work done by Dr. Meriem Makhlouf of Fluent Europe that helped
in setting up the current validation problem with ease. The author would also like to thank Andre Peters of Fluent
Inc. for helpful discussions.
References
1. Sayre, A., Lallemant, N., Dugue, J., and Weber, R., "Scaling Characteristics of Aerodynamics and Low-NOr
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.
2. Weber, R., Peters, A. A. F., Breithaupt, P. P., and Visser, B. M., Mathematical Modeling of Swirling
Pulverized Coal Flames: What can Combustion Engineers expect from Modeling. ASME FACT 17, 71. Book No.
H00827-1993.
3. Magnussen, B. F. and Hjertager, B. H., On Mathematical Modeling of Turbulent Combustion with Emphasis
on Soot Formation and Combustion, Seventeenth Symposium (International) on combustion, The Combustion
Institute, (1976).
4. Hutchinson, B.R., and Raithby, G.D., A Multigrid Method based on the Additive Correction STrategy, Num.
Heat Transfer, v. 9, pp. 511-537, (1986).
5. Peters, A.A.F, and Weber. R., Mathematical Modeling of a 2.25 MW Swirling Natural Gas Flame. Part
1: Eddy Breakup Concept for Turbulent Combustion; Probability Density Function Approach for Nitric Oxide
Formation, Combustion Science and Technology, vols. 110-111, pp. 67-101. (1995)
6. Wild, P.N., and Faltsi-Saravelou, 0., Mathematical Modeling of a 2.25 MW Swirling Natural Gas Flame.
Part 2: Conserved Scalar Approach for Turbulent Combustion, Combustion Science and Technology, vols. 110-111,
pp. 103-121. (1995)
7. Kaufman, K.C., and Fiveland, W.A., Pilot Scale Data Collection and Burner Model Numerical Code
Validation, topical report for GRI contract 5093-260-2729.
761 mm
382mm
water-cooled jacket
106~.8
1651 mm
mm
optional refractory brick
- - - - _ 195mm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J-- - - - - - - .
swirling
combustion air
: -: . :- :- :- :- :- :- :..................
=====rf
natural gas =
--------24o hoiSs - Ifo.S6Dei [)~ 1~1:~~
1.8 mm
1.66 Do
1.33 Do
r-------,
100 = 87 mml
.1
.1
l"-
I--
~C ~
r-l---~ b:=:~
~.----Vl,.-~t::::
'--~VVVl,.--~
r-r-v V v V l--l..-----~r::: f:::::~
~~
vV
vJ---VVJ..-.--""~V
r-"'- ~
V
V
V
V
~
vI--- [::::::v_v~1-- __ I-- v v v-~
~t::: ~~
~I---
--r:::
1---'--
r--'-r::
,-- - -
v'--
--t:::::
. . . ---1---1--1--:..-:..-::::::-- --v-
v-v--
~~ I- ~
........
1--::::: i:==L--
;::::::""':::1---1::> e-----
~t:SL-~~I--~t:=~1--- ~ f.----
II
I--~ ~
1---1--~ I--I----- f.---~e-_:--1-...........1-~I--- ~
f..-I--I-l-- ~
~ I--~I--~
:--I--~
~~~
I--I--~~
1---1--~
...--
---<__
_>--I--~-
f--r----
-I--
i..--
I-~
>--
>->--
UNS
:- - FLUENT
6.00e-.Ol
6 .~01
S.OO$+O I
S .~ O I
4.00$+0 1
4 .~0 1
3.00..0 1
3 .~01
2 .~0 1
2 . ~0 1
Axial
veloCi~
Axial
velocl~
1.00$+01
(mts
1.~0 1
(mts
o. ~()()
O.OOHOO
-1.00$+01
1 .~0 1
2.00$+0 1
- 2 . ~0 1
-3.00$+01
-3 . ~0 1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
05
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
05
0.6
0.4
05
0.6
0.4
05
Position (m)
Position (m)
4 . ~01
350&+01
3JX~ 1
3. ~0 1
2..sc..{11
250&+01
2.Q\...... {I1
Axial
2 .~0 1
Axial
150...... {I1
veloCi~
(mts
veloCi~
(mts
1.Q\...... {I1
150&+01
1 .~0 1
..
s .~()()
s.(,_ \
o.~()()
(I.OX..... \
-s . ~()()
..s.ox.....\
- 1 .~ 0 1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
05
0.6
0.1
Position (m)
0.2
0.3
Position (m)
3. ~ 0 1
25<....'1
250&+01
2.(.:....'1
2 . ~0 1
150.........'1
150&+01
Axial
velOCi~
Axial
veloCI~
I _OX......'1
(m's
1 .~01
(mts
5.,.:......, .
s .~()()
o.~()()
\1
\: ~........
-5..,:,:_ "
-S .~()()
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
05
0.6
0.1
Position (m)
0.2
0.3
Position (m)
10
0.6
~ ~~NT
1. \0.. 0\
1.20..0\
\ .00..0\
1.00..0\
8.00..00
,.
8.00..00
' .00..00
7.00..00
6.00..00
Tangential
velocl~
{m's
Tangential
5.00..00
6.00..00
velocl~
{m's
.00..00
4.00..00
3.00..00
2 .00..00
2.00..00
1.00..00
0.00..00
0.00..00
0.\
0.2
0.3
0 .
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.2
0 .
0.5
0.6
Position (m)
Position (m)
1.40..01
1 . 0..0\
1.20..01
1.20..0\
1.00..01
1.00..01
8.00..00
Tangential
Velocity
(m's)
Tangential
Velocity
(m's)
8.00...00
6.00...00
6.00..00
.00..00
.00...00
2.00...00
2.00..00
O.OO"OO+----,--"""T"--.....----r---...----,
0.00...00 +----,--"""T"--.....----r---...--'---,
0. \
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.2
Position (m)
0.3
0 .
0.5
0.6
Position (m)
1.20..01
1.00..0\
8.00..00
Tangential
Velocity
(m's)
Tangential
Velocity
(m's)
6.00..00
.00..00
2.00..00
2.00..00
O.IX-"'OO+----,_-"""T"--.....----r--"""T""......- - ,
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
O.OO"OO+----,--"""T""--.....----r--"""T""---,
0.\
0.6
Position (m)
0.2
0.3
Position (m)
11
0 .
0.5
0.6
2.20.. co
2.00..CO
1.80..CO
1.80..CO
1.so..CO
Static
Temperature
1.40..CO
(k)
1.20..CO
Static
Temperature
uo..co
(k)
uo..co
1.00..CO
...
1.00..CO
8.00..02
6.00..02
+---,.....----.----r---,.....----.---..,
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
6.00..02
+--...;...,,.....----r---r---,.....----.----.
0.6
0.2
0 .1
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Position (m)
Position (m)
2~CO
2.2o..CO
"
2.00..CO
1.8e-CO
1.80..CO
:\
1.so..CO
Static
Temperature
Static
Temperature
1.4c-CO
(k)
l~CO
;.
....
1.40..CO
(k)
l.2o..CO
1.00..CO
...
...
.."
li
I'
...:--.:.:.;.:.-.~ ....- - - -
\i..
: ::
~
:/
.eoc...."C2 +-----.r-----r---r--......,,.....----r-~
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
8.00..02
0.6
0 .1
Position (m)
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Position (m)
2.4<+CO
2.2o..CO
1.80..CO
Static
Static
Temperature
Uil'-"+<O
T~ture
(k)
1.so..CO
(k)
1....'"-<0
...
1.40..CO
l.2o..CO
1.00..CO+--_,.....----.-_ _-r-_ _...--_--.._ _....,
1.l'.'"-<O+---,.....----.----r---...-----..---.
(I
0 .1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0 .1
Position (m)
02
0.3
Position (m)
12
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.61.'oe+(Il
cty-mole-02
dry-mole-co2
U\''oe+(I1
.......... ... .
a'~ +-~~-----r----T---~----~--~
(I
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.1
Position (m)
0.2
0.3
Position (m)
13
0.4
0.5
0.6
t " ~NT
1.400>+01
9.0<+00
1.200>+ 01
8.0<+00
1.0<+01
7.0<+00
dry-mole-02
jry-mole-co2
8.0<+00
6.0<+00
5.0<+00
4.0<+00
4.0<+00
2.00..00
0.0<+00
+-0:::..._..--_--.,........._--..__-.-__....-_--.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
3 .0<+00
+---.-----.----..---.---........--...
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
Position (m)
Position (m)
1.100>+01
1.os...0 1
1.0<+01
95 00>+00
9.0<+00
dry-mole-02
jry-mole-co2
5.(\....... ro
85 00>+00
8.0<+00
75 00>+00
...... (....
2.~
7.0<+00
(\.(\.-..oo
+--'--.-----...----..---.---........---.
(\
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 .4
0.5
6500>+00
+----":,.----.----..--....,...--........---,
o
0.6
Position (m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
Position (m)
14
0.4
05
0.6
- - - UNS-Mag-2ste
- UNS-Mag-1ste
Experiment
-lldf
2.00e-01
1.75e-01
1.50e-01
1.25e-01
1.00e-01
dry-mole-02
7.50e-02
....
5.009-02
~-
.,- ---.-.=
..........-.......
. --..............
- .......- ......
..-........-..~.~
..-. ......-.-.
2.509-02
O.OOe+OO
2.50e 02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Position (m)
_ UNSMag2ste
- UNS-Mag1ste
experiment
-pdf
1.40e 01
1.20e-01
1.00e01
........
8.00e-02
dry-mole-co2
6.00e-02
4.00e-02
2.00e-02
O.OOe+OO
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Position (m)
15