Yujuan Luo

Evaluation of flamelet/progress variable model for laminar pulverized coal combustion

In the present work, the flamelet/progress variable (FPV) approach based on two mixture fractions is formulated for pulverized coal combustion and then evaluated in laminar counterflow coal flames under different operating conditions through both a priori and a posteriori analyses. Two mixture fractions, Zvol and Zchar, are defined to characterize the mixing between the oxidizer and the volatile matter/char reaction products. A coordinate transformation is conducted to map the flamelet solutions from a unit triangle space (Zvol, Zchar) to a unit square space (Z, X) so that a more stable solution can be achieved. To consider the heat transfers between the coal particle phase and the gas phase, the total enthalpy is introduced as an additional manifold. As a result, the thermo-chemical quantities are parameterized as a function of the mixture fraction Z, the mixing parameter X, the normalized total enthalpy Hnorm, and the reaction progress variable YPV. The validity of the flamelet chemtable and the selecte...

An a priori study of different tabulation methods for turbulent pulverised coal combustion

In many practical pulverised coal combustion systems, different oxidiser streams exist, e.g. the primary- and secondary-air streams in the power plant boilers, which makes the modelling of these systems challenging. In this work, three tabulation methods for modelling pulverised coal combustion are evaluated through an a priori study. Pulverised coal flames stabilised in a three-dimensional turbulent counterflow, consisting of different oxidiser streams, are simulated with detailed chemistry first. Then, the thermo-chemical quantities calculated with different tabulation methods are compared to those from detailed chemistry solutions. The comparison shows that the conventional two-stream flamelet model with a fixed oxidiser temperature cannot predict the flame temperature correctly. The conventional two-stream flamelet model is then modified to set the oxidiser temperature equal to the fuel temperature, both of which are varied in the flamelets. By this means, the variations of oxidiser temperature can be considered. It is found that this modified tabulation method performs very well on prediction of the flame temperature. The third tabulation method is an extended three-stream flamelet model that was initially proposed for gaseous combustion. The results show that the reference gaseous temperature profile can be overall reproduced by the extended three-stream flamelet model. Interestingly, it is found that the predictions of major species mass fractions are not sensitive to the oxidiser temperature boundary conditions for the flamelet equations in the a priori analyses.

Evaluation of different flamelet tabulation methods for laminar spray combustion

In this work, three different flamelet tabulation methods for spray combustion are evaluated. Major differences among these methods lie in the treatment of the temperature boundary conditions of the flamelet equations. Particularly, in the first tabulation method (“M1”), both the fuel and oxidizer temperature boundary conditions are set to be fixed. In the second tabulation method (“M2”), the fuel temperature boundary condition is varied while the oxidizer temperature boundary condition is fixed. In the third tabulation method (“M3”), both the fuel and oxidizer temperature boundary conditions are varied and set to be equal. The focus of this work is to investigate whether the heat transfer between the droplet phase and gas phase can be represented by the studied tabulation methods through a priori analyses. To this end, spray flames stabilized in a three-dimensional counterflow are first simulated with detailed chemistry. Then, the trajectory variables are calculated from the detailed chemistry solutions. Finally, the tabulated thermo-chemical quantities are compared to the corresponding values from the detailed chemistry solutions. The comparisons show that the gas temperature cannot be predicted by “M1” with only a mixture fraction and reaction progress variable being the trajectory variables. The gas temperature can be correctly predicted by both “M2” and “M3,” in which the total enthalpy is introduced as an additional manifold. In “M2,” variations of the oxidizer temperature are considered with a temperature modification technique, which is not required in “M3.” Interestingly, it is found that the mass fractions of the reactants and major products are not sensitive to the representation of the interphase heat transfer in the flamelet chemtables, and they can be correctly predicted by all tabulation methods. By contrast, the intermediate species CO and H2 in the premixed flame reaction zone are over-predicted by all tabulation methods.In this work, three different flamelet tabulation methods for spray combustion are evaluated. Major differences among these methods lie in the treatment of the temperature boundary conditions of the flamelet equations. Particularly, in the first tabulation method (“M1”), both the fuel and oxidizer temperature boundary conditions are set to be fixed. In the second tabulation method (“M2”), the fuel temperature boundary condition is varied while the oxidizer temperature boundary condition is fixed. In the third tabulation method (“M3”), both the fuel and oxidizer temperature boundary conditions are varied and set to be equal. The focus of this work is to investigate whether the heat transfer between the droplet phase and gas phase can be represented by the studied tabulation methods through a priori analyses. To this end, spray flames stabilized in a three-dimensional counterflow are first simulated with detailed chemistry. Then, the trajectory variables are calculated from the detailed chemistry solutions....