Revision as of 10:17, 30 April 2011

SANDIA Flame D

Application Challenge AC2-09 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2024

Comparison of Test Data and CFD

In this section comparisons of the CFD results and test data are organized as follows:

Comparisons of two different approaches for modeling the turbulence/combustion interaction, namely: steady flamelet model and simplified Conditional Moment Closure (designated as CMC -model in the figures from here on) obtained with the classical Smagorinsky subgrid scale model,

Comparisons of two subgrid-scale models, namely: classical Smagorinsky subgrid scale model and dynamic Smagorinsky one using the steady flamelet model of turbulence/combustion interaction.

Fig.6. shows mean velocity axial component and mixture fraction along the centerline for both steady flamelet and CMC approaches. One can see quite significant discrepancies between both models. Steady flamelet shows rapid velocity decay in the near field and then the slope is quite close to the one measured experimentally. On the other hand the CMC model leads to much smaller velocity decay. The velocity profile for CMC is closer to experimental data but the slope at the distance z/D=10 is underpredicted. At the distance z/D=30 both models predict good velocity decay. As to the mixture fraction both models predict quite a long distance z/D ≤ 16 for which the mixture fraction is unity while the experiment showed much more intense mixing in this region. As a consequence, at the jet centerline for a distance z/D ≤ 16 the numerical models do not predict reaction and this is reflected in the temperature profile and combustion products like CO₂ shown in Fig.8. However, further downstream in the fully developed flame the numerical results are much closer to the experimental data. Especially CMC predicts the value of temperature maximum and its location with quite high accuracy (see Fig.7).


Fig. 6. Axial velocity (left) and mixture fraction (right) along the flame axis

Fig. 7. Temperature along the flame axis

The species distributions are shown in Figs 8-10. As the models predict the flame too far from the nozzle exit, in all species distributions similar discrepancies are observed at the distance z/D = 10 – 20. And again, as was observed for the temperature profile, further in the developed flame the agreement with experimental data is much better. The distributions for H₂O, O₂, CO predicted with CMC are nearly perfect. A bit worse results were obtained for H₂.


Fig. 8. Mean mass fraction of CH₄ (left) and CO₂ (right)


Fig. 9. Mean mass fraction of H₂O (left) and O₂ (right)


Fig. 10. Mean mass fraction of CO (left) and O₂ (right)

Fig.11 shows the fluctuating axial velocity and mixture fraction components. In the near field the velocity fluctuations predicted by both models at the distance [pic]are much higher than measured experimentally which is consistent with much faster velocity decay in this region shown in Fig.6. Further downstream in the developed flame, agreement is very good. For the fluctuating component of the mixture fraction shown in Fig.11 in the near field fluctuations are lower than observed experimentally and again in the developed flame agreement is quite good. Maximum value of temperature fluctuations (Fig.12) is located much closer to the nozzle exit than the maximum value of mean temperature. CMC leads to higher level of temperature fluctuations. Fluctuating components of major species are shown in Figs 13-15. Both models predict reasonable levels of species fluctuation in agreement with experimental results.

Contributed by: Andrzej Boguslawski — Technical University of Częstochowa