A posteriori testing of the flame surface density transport equation for LES

Ma, Terence; Stein, Oliver T.; Chakraborty, Nilanjan; Kempf, Andreas

doi:10.1080/13647830.2013.848383

Cited by 25 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(146 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The transport equation for Σ takes the following form (Cant et al, 1990;Duclos et al, 1993;Veynante et al, 1996;Hawkes and Cant 2001a;Chakraborty and Cant, 2007;Hun and Huh, 2008;Katragadda et al, 2011;Chakraborty et al, 2011;Hernandez-Perez et al, 2011;Reddy and Abraham, 2012;Chakraborty and Cant, 2013;Ma et al, 2014;Sellman et al, 2017):…”

Section: Mathematical Background and Numerical Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The modelling of 1 depends on the closure of the turbulent flux of FSD [( ) (Hawkes and Cant 2001a;Hernandez-Perez et al, 2011;Ma et al, 2014).…”

Section: Modelling Of the Turbulent Transport Termmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is worth noting that both CPB and CFM models have been proposed and assessed for simple chemistry mechanisms and unity Lewis number (Cant et al, 1990;Duclos et al, 1993;Hawkes and Cant 2001a;Chakraborty and Cant, 2007;Hernandez-Perez et al, 2011;Reddy and Abraham, 2012;Chakraborty and Cant, 2013;Ma et al, 2014). Moreover, the assumptions behind the CPB and CFM models are also not consistent with the flame physics in cases A-C. For example, the surface-averaged tangential strain rate for the CPB model is taken to scale with the Kolmogorov time scale = √ 0 /, which is valid for material surfaces (Yeung et al, 1990) but not valid for a flame which propagates normal to itself (Cant et al, 1990).…”

Section: Modelling Of the Tangential Strain Rate Termmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The generalised FSD is defined as (Boger et al, 1998): Σ = |∇ | ̅̅̅̅̅ where is the reaction progress variable (RPV) and the overbar indicates a Reynolds averaging or filtering operation in the context of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) or large eddy simulations (LES). A number of previous analyses focussed on both algebraic (Boger et al, 1998;Cant and Bray, 1998;Charlette et al, 2002;Knikker et al, 2002;Keppeler et al, 2014;Klein et al, 2016;Chakraborty and Klein., 2008a;Ma et al, 2013) and transport equation (Cant et al, 1990;Duclos et al, 1993;Veynante et al, 1996;Hawkes and Cant 2001a;Chakraborty and Cant, 2007;Hun and Huh, 2008;Katragadda et al, 2011;Chakraborty et al, 2011;Hernandez-Perez et al, 2011;Reddy and Abraham, 2012;Chakraborty and Cant, 2013;Ma et al, 2014;Sellman et al, 2017) based closures of FSD for turbulent premixed combustion. However, most of these analyses (Boger et al, 1998;Cant and Bray, 1998;Charlette et al, 2002;Keppeler et al, 2014;Klein et al, 2016;Chakraborty and Klein., 2008a;Ma et al, 2013;Cant et al, 1990;Duclos et al, 1993;Hawkes and Cant 2001a;Chakraborty and Cant, 2007;Hun and Huh, 2008;Katragadda et al, 2011;Chakraborty et al, 2011;…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of Reaction Progress Variable Definition on the Flame Surface Density Transport Statistics and Closure for Different Combustion Regimes

Papapostolou

Chakraborty

Klein

et al. 2018

Combustion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implications of the choice of reaction progress variable on the performances of the Flame Surface Density (FSD) based mean reaction rate closure and the well-established sub-models of the FSD transport have been analysed in context of Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes simulations. For this purpose, a detailed chemistry Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) database of freely-propagating H 2 −air flames (with an equivalence ratio of 0.7) spanning the corrugated flamelets, thin reaction zones and broken reaction zones regimes of premixed turbulent combustion has been considered. The FSD and the unclosed terms of its transport equation have been analysed for reaction progress variables defined based on normalised H 2 , O 2 and H 2 O mass fractions and temperature. The performances of the closures for turbulent flux of FSD, and tangential strain rate term have been found to be mostly unaffected by the choice of reaction progress variable. However, the well-established existing models for the unresolved tangential strain rate term have been found not to perform well for the cases representing the corrugated flamelets and thin reaction zones regimes of premixed combustion.The performance of a well-established existing model for the combined propagation and curvature terms has been found to be significantly dependent on the choice of reaction progress variable. Furthermore, the surface-averaged value of the density-weighted displacement speed cannot be approximated by the corresponding unstretched laminar flame value especially for the flames in the broken reaction zones regime. Detailed explanations have been provided for the observed behaviours of the FSD based reaction rate closure and sub-models for the unclosed terms of the FSD transport equation in different combustion regimes for different choices of reaction progress variable.

show abstract

Section: Mathematical Background and Numerical Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The modelling of 1 depends on the closure of the turbulent flux of FSD [( ) (Hawkes and Cant 2001a;Hernandez-Perez et al, 2011;Ma et al, 2014).…”

Section: Modelling Of the Turbulent Transport Termmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modelling Of the Tangential Strain Rate Termmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Reaction Progress Variable Definition on the Flame Surface Density Transport Statistics and Closure for Different Combustion Regimes

Papapostolou

Chakraborty

Klein

et al. 2018

Combustion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[47, 48]. Studies like those are however needed to further advance the LES modeling technique, and to quantify the predictive capabilities and identify the limitations of LES combustion modeling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Finite Rate Chemistry Large Eddy Simulation Combustion Models

Fedina

Fureby

Bulat

et al. 2017

Flow Turbulence Combust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large Eddy Simulations (LES) of a swirl-stabilized natural gas-air flame in a laboratory gas turbine combustor is performed using six different LES combustion models to provide a head-to-head comparative study. More specifically, six finite rate chemistry models, including the thickened flame model, the partially stirred reactor model, the approximate deconvolution model and the stochastic fields model have been studied. The LES predictions are compared against experimental data including velocity, temperature and major species concentrations measured using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), OH Planar Laser-Induced Fluorescence (OH-PLIF), OH chemiluminescence imaging and one-dimensional laser Raman scattering. Based on previous results a skeletal methane-air reaction mechanism based on the well-known Smooke and Giovangigli mechanism was used in this work. Two computational grids of about 7 and 56 million cells, respectively, are used to quantify the influence of grid resolution. The overall flow and flame structures appear similar for all LES combustion models studied and agree well with experimental still and video images. Takeno flame index and chemical explosives mode analysis suggest that the flame is premixed and resides within the thin reaction zone. The LES results show good agreement with the experimental data for the axial velocity, temperature and major species, but differences due to the choice of LES combustion model are observed and discussed. Furthermore, the intrinsic flame structure and the flame dynamics are similarly predicted by all LES combustion models examined. Within this range of models, there is no strong case for deciding which model performs the best.

show abstract