4.4 Article

Large Eddy Simulation of Bluff-Body Flame Approaching Blow-Off: A Sensitivity Study

期刊

COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 191, 期 10, 页码 1815-1842

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00102202.2018.1536125

关键词

Bluff-body; Blow off (BO); Large Eddy Simulation (LES); turbulence-chemistry interaction (TCI); Transported Probability Density Function (TPDF); Partially Stirred Reactor model (PaSR); Implicit LES (ILES)

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council (VR)
  2. National Centre for Combustion Science and Technology (CeCOST)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As almost all combustion processes of practical interest take place in the presence of turbulence, the development of the increasingly refined turbulence-chemistry interaction (TCI) models has led to highly sophisticated approaches. Nearly all of the studies comparing different models focus on stable premixed/non-premixed flame configurations. In this work, the focus is on well-documented, lean premixed bluff-body stabilized flames approaching blow-off and on the blow-off sequence itself. Large Eddy Simulations (LES) have been used to capture the time-dependent, three-dimensional flow-field using Transported Probability Density Function (TPDF), Partially Stirred Reactor Model (PaSR), and Implicit LES (ILES) models. Furthermore, the influence of finite-rate chemistry and different chemical mechanisms is evaluated to determine the limitation and capability of the different TCI approaches for modeling flames just prior to and during the transient blow-off process. While the average flow-fields do not reveal any significant differences between modeling approaches, detailed analysis of the flame reveals that there are differences in the predicted flame thickness and composition. The ability of the considered TCI models to predict local as well as full-flame extinction during the blow-off is investigated as well. It is demonstrated that such a blow-off sequence is not always governed by complex chemistry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据