Model Comparisons of Flow and Chemical Kinetic Mechanisms for Methane–Air Combustion for Engineering Applications

Applied Sciences

Yusong Yu¹  Yucheng Kuang¹  Di He¹  Chaojun Wang¹ 

[1] Institute of Combustion and Thermal Systems, School of Mechanical, Electronic and Control Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China;

关键词: eddy dissipation concept (EDC);    Sandia Flame D;    methane–air combustion;    chemical kinetic mechanism;    probability density function (PDF);   

DOI  :  10.3390/app11094107

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

The reasonably accurate numerical simulation of methane–air combustion is important for engineering purposes. In the present work, the validations of sub-models were carried out on a laboratory-scale turbulent jet flame, Sandia Flame D, in comparison with experimental data. The eddy dissipation concept (EDC), which assumes that the molecular mixing and subsequent combustion occur in the fine structures, was used for the turbulence–chemistry interaction. The standard k-ε model (SKE) with the standard or the changed model constant C_1ε, the realizable k-ε model (RKE), the shear-stress transport k-ω model (SST), and the Reynolds stress model (RSM) were compared with the detailed chemical kinetic mechanism of GRI-Mech 3.0. Different reaction treatments for the methane–air combustion were also validated with the available experimental data from the literature. In general, there were good agreements between predictions and measurements, which gave a good indication of the adequacy and accuracy of the method and its further applications for industry-scale turbulent combustion simulations. The differences between predictions and measured data might have come from the simplifications of the boundary settings, the turbulence model, the turbulence–reaction interaction, and the radiation heat transfer model. For engineering predictions of methane–air combustion, the mixture fraction probability density function (PDF) model for the partially premixed combustion with RSM is recommended due to its relatively low simulation expenses, acceptable accuracy predictions, and quantitatively good agreement with the experiments.

【 授权许可】

Unknown