Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and
J. H. W H I T E L A W
Department of Mechanical Engineering, ImperialCollege, London SW7 2By, England
The purpose of this review is to describe and appraise components of calculation methods, based on the solution of
conservation equations in differential form, for the velocity, temperature and concentration fields in turbulent
combusting flows. Particular attention is devoted to the combustion models used within these methods and to
gaseous-combustion applications.
The differential equations are considered first and the implications of conventional (i.e., unweighted) and densityweighted averaging discussed in the contexts of solution methods and physical interpretation. In general, it is concluded
that equations should be solved with dependent variables in density-weighted form and that the interpretation of
measurements requires special care to distinguish between conventionally averaged and density-weighted properties.
Finite difference approximations contained within numerical procedures for solving the equations relevant to two- and
three-dimensional recirculating flows, such as are to be found in combustion chambers, are considered briefly. It is
concluded that computer storage requirements very often preclude the possibility of reducing the numerical error to
entirely negligible proportions everywhere. Considerable care must therefore be taken in both specifying a sufficient
number and the distribution of mesh points to be used and also in the interpretation of computational results. Turbulence
models are also discussed briefly and deficiencies noted. Since many flows are partly controlled by mechanisms other
than diffusion and turbulence transport, these deficiencies are of major importance in a limited range of circumstances
which are discussed.
The various recent methods proposed to represent reaction in turbulent flames are reviewed in relation to diffusion and
premixed flames and to flames in which an element of both is present. The application of laminar flame sheet models,
chemical equilibrium assumptions, probability density functions of different forms, and truncated series expansion of
reaction rate expressions are considered together with the use of probability density function transport equations and
their (Monte Carlo) solution. The appraisal is made in relation to presently available results and future requirements and
possibilities.
1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
The calculation of turbulent, combusting flows
has received considerable attention in recent years,
as is demonstrated by the papers contained in the
reviews of Bracco (1976), the AGARD Conference on Combustion Modelling (1980), Jones
(1980), and Libby and Williams (1980). As a conCopyright 1982 by The Combustion Institute
Published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.
52 Vanderbilf Avenue, New York, NY 10017
0010-2180182/10001 +26502.75
solution of conservation equations in finite-difference form, not because they are clearly most
suitable for design purposes now, but because they
offer very wide ranging possibilities which need to
be carefully and critically observed and evaluated.
A calculation method for practical combustion
systems comprises a number of essential components. Included in these are the conservation equations, numerical solution methods, turbulence
models, and combustion models, and while it is
difficult to isolate these components completely,
they are described separately in Sections 2, 3, 4,
and 5, respectively. Gaseous combustion is assumed in the related discussion since two-phase
flows add considerable complexity and require
separate consideration. Radiation models are relevant to many combusting flows, and particularly
to large furnaces, but are also outside the scope of
this article. The final section attempts, partly by
the presentation and evaluation of published resuits, to indicate the usefulness of results which
can be obtained with presently available procedures.
2. CONSERVATION EQUATIONS
For gas-fueled flames, in the absence of radiation,
the local values of velocity, concentration of
chemical species and enthalpy can be represented
by the following conservation equations:
Momentum
aG
aG
axj
- Oxj
(ov,+ovj
Dt
Dxj P~ Dxj Pr
N
~c - 1
~C,~}
ha ~
~=1
Oxj
~4)
p =p
(5)
(6)
and
N
+ Pgt,
(1)
Continuity
_
(3)
0h
0h
P~+P~o~j
h =~
ap o r ,
= 1, N,
Enthalpy
h -- ha(T)
Oxi ~x i
--+--=O,
0t 0x~
Sc ~x~ l + pi~'
out+ w,
p-~ o~ o~j
Op
Chemical species
(2)
C~h~
(7)
0(ffil
A + B - , c,
(8)
r~ = - - - k ~ C a C B ,
MB
i'B = - - -
MA
rc = +
cation is that, while molecular processes are responsible for mixing at a microlevel, the rate at
which they occur is independent of the values of
molecular transport coefficients and indeed of the
precise mechanism whereby molecular diffusion
occurs. Hence the assumption that we make is not
that the actual molecular processes are as implied
in Eqs. (3) and (4) but rather that turbulence is
dominated by inertial effects. Thus, the models
to be described take no explicit account of molecular transport at all and Eqs. (1), (3) and (4) are
rewritten in the more general forms
kfC a G,
PMc
MAMB
au~
au~
p ~
r pUj axj kfCa CB.
ap ar~j.+
aX i "1- aXj Pgt,
(10)
(9)
p -~-
pUs - - = -axj
axz
pSu(p, ~),
(11)
u=U+u';
where
1 [ to+r
U = lim-
Udt
r -'--~~ T
and
~'=0,
4tO
+ pc~' -
+ pey',
where
-~J = lira
1 f to+l"
-
,r..+ oo T
pU dt
and ffff" = 0
to
but
~" 4= O.
(12)
(~O~) = 0
axt
a
~_
(
a
--
utus)=
axt
axs
u s ),
(13)
a
--~-~xi(Pui (o)
P,~a(~).
(14)
gi
,,-~, ,,
5
appear not to have progressed beyond the formative state, and an application of higher-order
schemes to a set of coupled nonlinear (elliptic)
conservation equations remains to be demonstrated.
The accuracy of calculations is dependent on
the numerical scheme and also on the flow and its
boundary conditions. The importance of the flow
is shown, for example, by contrasting the results
of Vlachos and Whitelaw (1979) obtained for the
laminar flow around an axisymmetric constriction
in a pipe with those of Green and Whitelaw (1980)
for an axisymmetric recirculation of a combustor.
In the pipe flow, calculations with 12 7 and
22 17 nodes showed a maximum difference of
around 20% of the maximum velocity value; the
velocity variations were monotonic with increase
in number of nodes; and the results with 22 17
nodes were argued to be correct, within error
bounds of a few percent. The same numerical
scheme was used by Green and Whitelaw and the
use of 22 16 nodes led to results which were far
from correct due mainly to the inability of this
mesh to resolve properly a small region of recirculation which greatly influenced the downstream
profile. Calculations with 28 X 30 nodes were
still inadequate until the positions of the mesh
lines were arranged so as to provide a proper resolution of the pressure field. Results obtained with
50 50 nodes were similar, i.e., maximum velocities within 4%, to those obtained with 28 X 30
nodes located to resolve the pressure field. In addition to problems associated with locating grid
nodes to ensure that small regions which exert a
large influence on the overall flow are adequately
resolved, errors can arise directly from the finitedifference approximations themselves and in the
case of "elliptic" flow problems, sometimes from
a failure to procure a sufficiently converged solution. Leonard (1979) has discussed some of these
problems and provided a reminder that lack of
skill in the application of numerical methods can
lead to serious errors.
The numerical schemes used, for example, by
Swithenbank et al., Drummond et al., Jones and
McGuirk, Vlachos and Whitelaw, and Green and
Whitelaw, make use of centered implicit differ-
6
encing and are in principal second-order accurate.
Unfortunately, however, with centered differencing of the convection terms unphysical oscillatory (in space) solutions almost always arise for
cell Peclet numbers P l Us I Axe,[~at greater than
two. For nonlinear problems these inevitably prevent convergence for elliptic flow problems and
instability occurs otherwise. Special procedures
must therefore be adopted to ensure that the
finite-difference equations retain the properties
of the partial differential equations from which
they were derived, e.g., "wiggles" do not develop
in the numerical solution. The procedure most
commonly adopted is to switch to donor cell differencing 1 for the convection terms for cell Peclet numbers greater than two. This is carried out
both locally and on a directional basis, e.g., if in
one finite-difference cell p lUI Ax//at is greater
than two but p l V I Ay//a t is less than two, then
the donor cell differencing is used for the x-direction but centered differencing retained for the
y-direction. In practice this switching is implemented by what amounts to adding a pseudoviscosity of magnitude p lf,~lAx,~/2 to the actual
viscosity (molecular plus turbulent) and as a consequence may result in a "false" or "numerical"
diffusion. Whether or not significant error is thereby introduced depends then on the magnitude of
the other terms in the equation: it is important if
the total, i.e., numerical plus physical diffusion in
the direction in which donor cell differencing is
used makes a significant contribution to the conservation equation.
Numerical diffusion errors are usually most
serious when donor cell differencing is used in situations where the velocity vector is aligned close to
the diagonals of a finite-difference grid. An estimate of its magnitude may be obtained from the
expression suggested by Runchal and Wolfstein
(1969),
4. TURBULENCE MODEL
The unknown velocity covariance of Eq. (13)-the
Reynolds stress tensor-may be expressed as the
dependent variable of the exact conservation equation:
ax~ {
a ' + ut"
+ luj" op
ox,
ap' [
aa,
J - pu,"u "
(15)
A related equation can also be derived for the unweighted-averaged correlation, but, in both cases,
unknown correlations arise. This is a manifestation
of a recurrent difficulty prevalent in turbulencethe closure problem-to which a solution can be
attempted by relating higher-order correlations to
terms of a lower order and, thereby, closing the
equation set. In general the triple-velocity correlation, correlations involving fluctuating pressure,
and the viscous "dissipation" ei~ must all be approximated in terms of lower-order "known"
quantities.
Turbulence models based on direct closure of
the equations for the components of the stress
tensor have previously been proposed in the context of isothermal flows see, for example, Launder,
1975; Bradshaw, 1976; Lumley, 1978; and Bradshaw et al., 1981, and their extension to reacting
flows with associated large density variations has
been considered by Jones (1980). However, such
models are of considerable complexity, and for
recirculating flows there are substantial difficulties
in obtaining error free numerical solutions. As a
consequence, second-order stress closure models
must be considered to be largely untested in elliptic flows, and, therefore, at the present time
simpler eddy viscosity-type models, such as that
described below, are to be preferred. An alternative approach would be that of subgrid scale
modeling (see, for example, Reynolds, 1976; and
Schumann et al., 1980, but in view of both its
complexity and early state of development this is
also inappropriate at the present time.
The approach to the turbulence models commonly used for recirculating flows is a form of
the two-equation model introduced by Jones and
Launder (1972). This involves an assumed linear
relation between the Reynolds stress and rate of
strain:
--~
tt
"pU i Uj = ~ i J l
/
-Pk +tat ~Xk I
(16)
tat a~,~
~uy"~" -
(17)
ot axj
The turbulent (or eddy) viscosity is given by
tat = G ~ k 2 / e ,
where k(---- Ui"Ui"/2 ) and e are the turbulence kinetic energy and dissipation rate, respectively, the
values of which are obtained from the solution of
the transport equations:
~
Ok
Oxj
=.~
axj
. tat + .12
ax~
_ p._Ui,,Uj,,
axj
tat O~ O~
(18)
- U0x,
~Uj b
Oxj
tat + ta
ax~
axj
e [ _ - 7 7/ ,, a0, + ut a-~ a~
- C l k pui uj ~xj
e2
(19)
-Cz-o k
C1 =1.44,
6'2 =1.92;
ok =1.0,
ae =1.30,
at =0.7.
Equations (16)-(19) can also be written in unweighted-average form and, as indicated by Bray
8
(1973) include additional terms which stem from
the fluctuating density and which must be modeled.
The use of Eqs. (16)-(19) involves the assumption
that the approximations which are normally used
for constant density flows and which include the
gradient diffusion model can simply be rewritten
in density-weighted form without any explicit account being taken of density fluctuations, the influence of these being assumed to be entirely described by the use of density-weighted averaging.
These assumptions have not been and are unlikely
to be fully tested in a direct sense, but the present
evidence will support their validity in many cases:
the countergradient diffusion observed by Moss
(1980) is an exception. In the majority of cases
the performance of the density-weighted k - e
model in combusting flows does not appear to be
significantly different to that of the constant density version appropriate to isothermal flows. The
merits of the two-equation model have been appraised for isothermal flows in several papers, for
example, Launder and Spalding (1974), Jones and
McGuirk (1980b), and Ribeiro and Whitelaw
(1980a), and appears to represent a good compromise.
The contrast between the flows of Jones and
McGuirk (1980b) and Ribeiro and Whitelaw
(1980a) is instructive. The trajectory of the jet in
crossflow is controlled largely by pressure forces,
and, in most of the flow, the assumed form of
turbulent diffusion is of secondary importance.
In the coaxial jets of Ribeiro and Whitelaw, however, turbulence assumptions are important, and
those associated with two-equation models and indeed existing Reynolds stress closures were shown
to be incorrect in several respects. That such discrepancies sometimes occur is not entirely surprising, for both Reynolds stress closures and twoequation models involve approximating unknown
terms purely in terms of local turbulence quantities. Implicitly contained within this procedure
is the assumption that departures of the turbulence structure from homogeneity are in some
sense small; an approximation which is undoubtedly
in conflict with observation for some flows. In
spite of this limitation and those associated with
closure of the turbulence energy dissipation rate
equation, which cannot be separately evaluated,
p',/'
and
9
an additional potential problem, for the detailed
reaction mechanism whereby oxidation occurs is
known only for a few of the simpler hydrocarbons.
In practice, however, this may not present a significant problem. The complexities involved in
evaluating mean formation rates are such that, for
the foreseeable future, the use of only a small
number of finite-rate reaction mechanisms may be
the only practicable recourse.
Fortunately, however, the consideration of only
a small number of reactions does not appear to be
a serious drawback in most practical situations.The
reactions associated with heat release in the hightemperature oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels (and
hydrogen) usually have time scales very short compared with those characteristic of the transport
processes and the assumption of "fast" chemistry
thus provides a reasonable description under many
circumstances. Of course, it is not appropriate under all circumstances. In particular, the calculation
of the formation and emission of pollutants such
as carbon monoxide, unburnt fuel, and nitric
oxide all require consideration of finite-rate chemistry, as do ignition and extinction (blow-out)
phenomena. Nevertheless the "fast" chemistry assumption results in a considerable simplication as
far as modeling is concerned and does allow a reasonably accurate description of many features, including the fields of temperature and concentrations of major species in a wide range of continuous
flow combustion systems.
Diffusion or Unpremixed Flames
f A = ---pk,(T) C A C B
will lead to errors up to three orders of magnitude. The most convenient way to represent
the necessary scalar fluctuations is with a probability density function (p.d.f.). Other approaches
are possible and can be described in terms of p.d.f.
procedures. At the present time it appears that
only p.d.f, transport equation formulations offer
the possibility of handling large numbers of reacting
species, but even here in view of the multidimensionality of the approach, computer storage requirements and run times can be expected to be
very large, and their viability therefore remains to
be demonstrated. For hydrocarbon fuels there is
10
ever, in the case of turbulent flames a number of
simplifications are invariably made. With reasonable accuracy it can be assumed that all species
and heat have equal diffusion coefficients, i.e. the
turbulent Prandtl/Schmidt numbers are all equal,
and in many circumstances that the heat loss to
the surrounds is negligible compared with the heat
release. In this situation the instantaneous thermochemical state of the gas is determinable as a nonlinear function of a single strictly conserved (i.e.,
zero source) scalar variable. All the relevant strictly
conserved scalar variables are linearly related, so
the actual one to be used becomes a matter of
taste. Typical choices are the mixture fraction f,
defined here as the mass fraction of fuel both
burnt and unburnt, the elemental mass fraction of
any element present, and the enthalpy or any composite variable made up of these quantities. In the
present context the mixture fraction f will be
taken as the scalar variable to be used; all other
conserved quantities can then be obtained from
h = (h~u -- h a ) f + h a,
Ya = (Yatu -- Yaa)f + Y%,
where Ya is the mass fraction of element a and the
subscripts fu and a refer to the values appropriate
to the fuel and air streams, respectively. The instantaneous composition, temperature, and density
must now be related to the instantaneous value of
f. The simplest method of doing this is to assume
that the reaction proceeds via a single-step irreversible reaction of the form
fuel + oxidant ~ products.
The fast reaction assumption then implies that the
mixture (at any instant) consists of either fuel plus
products or oxidant plus products; i.e., fuel and
oxidant cannot coexist on an instantaneous basis.
A knowledge of f is then sufficient to determine
the (instantaneous) fuel, oxidant, and product
mass fractions, and with the adiabatic flow assumption the temperature may also be calculated.
In the past this simplified model has often been
used in conjunction with simplified thermodynamic
data, e.g., constant specific heats. This is an entirely unnecessary procedure, which brings negligible simplification, virtually no savings in computational effort, and can result in large errors in
axj axj
axj
at Oxj
Oxi ot
OXj l
+ 2o, \a j
fO
11
posed and used. For example, Naguib and Lockwood (1975) proposed and used a clipped Gaussian
distribution:
P(.f, xi)
= L2 e r f c { ~ %
*ff)e(f, xi) af
+lerfc
c~ = P
] 8(.t')
1 - - f ]/ 6 ( 1 - - f )
X/~o
[ H ( f ) - / ~ ( f - 1)]
o(f)
off)
-a)8 ( f - f - ) ,
P('f'xi)
p-l(1
- jOb-x
1
fo f " - l ( 1
, 0<f<
--JOb-1 df
1,
12
(i)
N+O 2~ NO+O,
(ii)
N + OH ~ NO + H.
(iii)
In most combustion systems the NO concentrations will be well below their equilibrium levels,
and if a steady-state approximation is then invoked for the N atom concentration, the instantaneous NO formation rate can be expressed as
MN O
SNo = 2pk~(O - CoCN2.
MoMN2
The rate constant kt ci) is a function of temperature alone, and if the oxygen atom concentrations are assumed to have equilibrium values, then
3No(x~.) =
SNo(f)Pff, xj)df.
13
For this reason, and perhaps also because perfectly
premixed flames occur less frequently in practical
systems, they appear to have received less attention than have diffusion flames. So far most work
on premixed flames has assumed that combustion
can be characterized by a global single step reaction
of the type
fuel+ oxidant ~ product
with, say, instantaneous product formation rate
given by an expression of the form
and which is based on the idea that the mean reaction rate is determined solely by the rate of scale
reduction via a process of turbulence vortex stretching. Thus the model takes no explicit account of
chemical kinetics and relates to combustion which
is entirely mixed controlled. In this situation it has
been shown to be in good accord with the available
evidence for premixed flames, though it must be
noted that, in the original formulation and many
subsequent applications, the fuel mass fraction
variance was obtained from a modeled transport
equation in which a potentially large term involving
the fuel burnup rate was unjustifiably ignored. The
model has also been used occasionally for nonpremixed flames: it is inappropriate in this situation
and Pope (1977) has shown that it does not then
necessarily provide unique solutions.
14
Sp" = Ca
r-) - CR e
'
where CR is a constant dependent on the continuous part F( ) of the p.d.f. The burning mode part
of the p.d.f.F( ) can be determined from a laminar
flamelet description though results are found to be
relatively insensitive to the shape chose (see, e.g.,
Bray 1978). For small and intermediate Damkohler
numbers this is unlikely to be the case and the
shape of the burning mode part of the p.d.f, will
be of greater importance, though its form can still
be determined from a laminar flamelet model. The
model has also been extended to cover more complex reaction mechanisms, though the assumption
invoked here is that the reaction steps proceed sequentially. Champion et al. (1978) have adopted
this latter approach to calculate a one-dimensional
premixed propane/air flame. Constant specific
heats were assumed and density-weighted averaging
used in conjunction with a combustion mechanism
involving two sequential stages. In the first stagethe delay zone-propane was taken to combine
with oxygen to form hydrogen and carbon monoxide via a single global reaction, the rate expression used being that of Edelman and Fortune
(1969). The second stage of the reaction involving
the oxidation of hydrogen and carbon mon-
15
tion, Reynolds stress production is negligible in
the examples considered so far, with consequent
emphasis on pressure forces.
Models Applicable to Premixed and Diffusion
Flames
The development of general methods for calculating the properties of both premixed and diffusion flames in which finite rate reactions (both
fast and slow) arise is obviously desirable. About
the simplest model which can be considered is the
moment closure method developed by Borghi
(1974). The mean reaction rate was obtained by
decomposing the temperature, density, and mass
fractions appearing therein into mean and fluctuating components, expanding the term via a Taylor series expansion, and then averaging. The resulting infinite series involving moments of all
orders was then truncated through the neglect of
moments higher than second order. For a simple
second-order reaction of the form
S = ApCaC# exp ( - T A / T )
+2
+ a4\
T2 /
1'
+aat, r +
+
p'T'
1 + al - -
pT
-P
+'"'
where
al = TAI~',
az= TAI~(TA--I~,
TAas = T Ca,
and
\2rl
TA
a4 = T ~a
The expansion is valid provided I T' I/T < 1. In itself this is not particularly restrictive. More serious,
however, is the fact that the series converges very
16
slowly unless TA/T is small; in practice this is a
severe restriction since, TA/T > l for most flame
reactions. Thus the neglect of correlations greater
than second order is in general unsatisfactory,
whereas their retention renders the approach intractable.
An alternative approach is to presume a form
for the joint probability density function for the
appropriate number of scalars in terms of their
means, variances, and covariances. The values of
these latter quantities then have to be obtained
from solution of transport equations for which
closure assumptions are required. The "typical
eddy" model of Donaldson (1975) can be viewed
as an attempt to construct a joint p.d.f, from Dirac
delta functions at fixed locations in composition
space. There exists some arbirariness in specifying
the locations of the delta functions, and it is likely
this will be reflected in predictions: mean reaction
rates are likely to be sensitive to the precise "typical eddy" treatment particularly where the chemistry is fast. A possible method of overcoming this,
but with some considerable increase in complexity,
is the construction of joint p.d.f.s from continuous
functions, for example, exponential functions, as
suggested by Jones (1980). However, the presumed
shape joint p.d.f, formalism suffers from the disadvantage that the number of moment equations
increases very rapidly with the number of independent species present. For example, a system
which can be described instantaneously in terms of
N species requires the solution of N(3 + At)/2 transport equations for the moments. The approach is
thus only practicable for simple kinetic schemes
involving only a small number (say up to three) of
independent scalars.
0:=1
-
(~<u/'b>)
axj
(20)
0:=1 18=1 ~ 0 : ~ / 3
19"~X.i
~Xj /
where
N
P=H
ot=l
o \\axi/
where C is a constant and g( ) is a continuous function which was specified on a purely intuitive basis.
Pope (1976) obtained qualitatively plausible results for a reacting homogeneous flow, though no
comparisons with experiment have been reported.
Numerical difficulties in obtaining finite-difference
solutions using the model have been reported by
Janicka et al. (1978). The only other models proposed for the mixing term involve applications and
extensions of the model of Curl (1963) for dispersed phase mixing to turbulent flow. Applied
17
to the mixing term Curl's model can be written
a6,~a6~
=G ~
e(4,~ -
o a~ a~.
2~
~')
~(6,~ + ,,~')
de' -
e(4,~)],
18
) aa'
P(4, ,',3
de' -e(4.)],
where the function P(~, @', ") is a transition probability. A form was suggested for P ( ) , though recently KoUmann and Janicka (1981) have reported
that the model is relatively insensitive to the precise form chosen provided that C~, is adjusted to the
same rate of decay of the variance of under
homogeneous conditions. In a further development
of the model Kollmann and Janicka decomposed
the joint p.d.f, into an atomic part, represented by
delta functions, plus a continuous part and derived
transport equations for each part. The separation
of the p.d.f, allows the intermittency to be determined and thus turbulent and nonturbulent fluid
to be identified. The mixing model was then applied to the turbulent fluid only for the continuous part of the p.d.f, though there are additional
contributions to molecular mixing involving the
atomic parts for which further assumptions were
invoked. For more details the reader is referred to
the original paper.
For the term representing turbulent transport
of probability only two closure assumptions appear
to have been suggested. For the case of a single
scalar Dopazo (1975) writes the turbulent transport term in the form
at
OXj
19
formation to allow the construction of the joint
p.d.f. (from solutions) if this is required. The complexity of the model and computational effort required to obtain solutions also appear comparable
with the p.d.f, transport equation methods. In the
ESKIMO model the analysis is separated into two
parts: a biographic part in which the details of reaction and molecular diffusion within "folds" are
treated in an essentially one-dimensional manner:
and a demographic part which involves the specification and description of the "fold" distribution.
The model appears to have been formulated on
largely intuitive grounds, and no use is made of the
exact conservation equation in the derivation. It is
therefore difficult to assess the implications and
any deficiencies of the various assumptions that
are invoked in the model. The mathematical
formulation of the demographic part is at present
under development and poses a number of as yet
unanswered problems.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is clear from the preceding sections that a general statement to quantify the extent to which
calculation methods can represent turbulent
reacting flow is not meaningful. The models associated with numerical solution techniques, turbulence, heat transfer, and combustion all contribute
uncertainty in proportions and with magnitudes
which depend upon the details of flow. The following paragraphs provide some useful reminders,
mainly in the context of gas turbine combustortype geometries, of present status and future requirements.
The geometry of Fig. 1 corresponds to the reacting flow experiments of Owen (1976). The flow
is axisymmetric and the fuel (methane) and air enter the combustor separately through a central jet
and a surrounding annulus. No swirl component of
velocity is present in either of the incoming central
fuel jet or the annulus air flow. The calculated results were obtained with 53 32-grid nodes and
the computer program of Jones (1975). The form
of the k-e turbulence model quoted in Eqs. (18)
and (19) was used, and further details may be
found in Jones and McGuirk (1980a). The axisymmetric nature of the flow allowed detailed numeri-
20
120
"6-
16'0
- -
4 -
"-~
I P~ed'Ct'o,sl
12"0
JO.O~ ,
~60
--2_.,.
---
0:5
I"0
I, 5
2' 0
x/2r o
Fig. 1. Measurements and predictions of the axial mean velocity contours.
cal tests, and the solution is believed to be independent of the number and position of nodes. It
may be said that the calculated and measured resuits are in general agreement, but it is clear that
quantitative differences exist. In particular, the
end of the recirculation region is calculated to be
downstream of the measurement, and the subsequent velocity rise is calculated to proceed at too
slow a rate, this latter behavior being typical of
flows with central regions of recirculation and
downstream recovery (for example, bluff body
flows). Lest it be thought that these flow field
errors are a consequence of reaction-variable density influences it should be noted that discrepancies
of a similar nature and magnitude are found in
constant density flows.
The result emphasizes the need for improvements in turbulence models. Existing higherorder models would probably not provide a significant improvement. It should be remembered, however, that large regions of the flow field in practical
combustors are pressure rather than turbulentdiffusion dominated, so that, even though improvements to the turbulence model are essential, the
1'0"
.8.--I
1200
----'----1600
'6'4."2-'2-./~.
--~000
Meosuremenfs I
---6-
_;:7-I
1:0
2:0
3:0
x/2r o
/~.0
5:0
21
portance of the turbulence model in this flow.
Velocity results of this quality are expensive of
time and money and require considerable attention to detail. It is clear, however, that they can
be achieved and that the deficiencies of simpler
geometries may not be of such major importance
as the greater pressure control of real combustor
flows. Major difficulties do, however, exist in correctly representing small regions of flow which
have a large influence on their surroundings, and
the incorrect representation of the diffusion of
scalar quantities, although less important than
in Fig. 2, can still lead to large errors. In addition,
it is important to remember that adequate numerical testing is always difficult and sometimes impossible for three-dimensional flows.
No results are presented for three-dimensional
flows with combustion. Very few such calculations
have been made, though the results of Jones and
Priddin (1978) and Mongia et al. (1979) represent
early attempts to calculate practical gas turbine
combustion chamber flows. The major reason for
this situation appears to be because of the difficulty of handling the complicated and arbitrary
geometrical shapes of practical systems, the problem being that the boundaries do not in general lie
along coordinate lines. There exist a number of
possible methods of representing arbitrary shapes,
the most general of which is the use of a general
(numerically generated) boundary-fitted curvilinear
coordinate system such as described in some detail
by Thompson (1980). While the technique is potentially powerful, it has to be said that the form
of conservation equations written in general coordinates can be exceedingly complicated. Alternative methods include finite element methods,
the use of a curvilinear orthogonal coordinate system-though its generation in three dimensions appears difficult-and cartesian coordinates with
piecewise linear interpolation of the boundary
surface between mesh lines and a special finitedifference formulation for node points adjacent
to the boundary. This last method, though conceptually straightforward, can be tedious to implement in practice. While many workers are actively pursuing the development of methods such
as those outlined above, for arbitrary geometries
none appear to have yet reached the stage where
22
"d
'3O
o=
"1
t./'3
C"q
o
8
>o
.o
o
e~
o=
23
oxide emission levels, a presumed form of p.d.f.
may represent a possible approach.
NOMENCLATURE
mass fraction of species a
ca
C~,,Cl, C2, CD constants in turbulence model
conditional expected value of u
E(u I)
f
gi
h
ji(~)
k
Ms
N
p
P( )
Pr
R
ra
Sa( )
Sc
t
T
Ui
ui
xi
5( )
~i~
e
/~
p
ot, ak, oe
7ij
4~
4)"
( )
given
mixture fraction; mass fraction of
fuel, burnt and unburnt
gravitational acceleration vector
specific enthalpy (including enthalpies of formation)
flux of scalar q~ arising from molecular transport
turbulence kinetic energy
molecular weight of species a
number of chemical species
static pressure
probability density function
molecular Prandtl number
universal gas constant
net formation rate of c~ per unit
mass
source term in scalar conservation
equation
molecular Schmidt number
time
temperature
velocity vector
fluctuating component of velocity
vector
coordinate in direction i
Dirac delta function
Kronecker delta
turbulence kinetic energy dissipation rate
molecular viscosity
fluid density
turbulent Prandtl/Schmidt number
for q~, k, and e
viscous stress tensor
generalized scalar quantity
fluctuating component of scalar
quantity
ensemble or time average quantity
24
W . P . J O N E S and J. H. W H I T E L A W
Subscripts
t
a
turbulent
species
REFERENCES
AGARD (1980). Combustor Modelling. Conference Proceedings No. 275.
A. M. Attya and J. H. Whitelaw (1981). Velocity, Temperature and Species Concentration in Unconfined
Kerosene Spray Flames, A.S.M.E. Paper 81-WA/HTD.
R. G. Batt (1977). Turbulent Mixing of Passive and
Chemically Reacting Species in a Low Speed Shear
Layer, J. FluidMech. 82:53.
R. W. Bilger (1976). Turbulent Jet Diffusion Flames,
Progr. Energy Comb. ScL 1:87.
R. W. Bilger (1980). Perturbation Analysis of Turbulent,
Non-Premixed Combustion, Comb. ScL Tech. 22:251.
R. W. Bilger and R. E. Beck (1975). Further Experiments
in Turbulent Jet Diffusion Flames, X V Symposium
(Int) on Combustion, p. 541.
R. Borghi (1974). Chemical Calculations in Turbulent
Flows-Application to CO Containing Turbojet
Flame, Adv. Geophysics 18B: 349.
C. T. Bowman (1970). An Experimental and Analytical
Investigation of the High Temperature Oxidation
Mechanisms of Hydrocarbon Fuels. Combustion,
Science and Technology, 2:161.
F. V. Bracco (1976). Reacting Turbulent Flows, Special
Issue of Comb. Sci. Tech. 13.
P. Bradshaw (1976). Topics in Applied Physics, Vol. 12,
Turbulence, Springer-Verlag, New York.
P. Bradshaw, T. Cebeci, and J. H. Whitelaw (1981). Calculation Methods for Turbulent Flows, Academic
Press, New York.
K. N. C. Bray (1973). Equations of Turbulent Combustion I. Fundamental Equations of Reacting Turbulent
Flow, Univ. Southampton AASU Rept. No. 330.
K. N. C. Bray (1978). The Interaction between Turbulence and Combustion, XVI1 Symposium (InO on
Combustion, p. 223.
K. N. C. Bray (1980). Turbulent flows with premixed
reactants, in Turbulent Reacting Flows. Topics in
Applied Physics (P. A. Libby and F. A. Williams,
Eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
K. N. C. Bray and J. B. Moss (1977). A Unified Statistical Model of the Premixed Turbulent Flame, Acta
Astronaut. 4: 291.
25
P. A. Libby and K.N.C. Bray (1980a). Counter Gradient
Diffusion in Premixed Turbulent Flames, A1AA Paper
No. 80-0013.
P. A. Libby and K. N. C. Bray (1980b). Implications of
the Laminar Flamelet Model in Premixed Turbulent
Combustion, CombusL Flame 39:33.
P. A. Libby and F. Williams (1980). Turbulent Reacting
Flows, Topics in Applied Physics, Vol. 4, SpringerVerlag, New York.
J. L. Lumley (1978). Computational Modelling of Turbulent Flows, in Advances in Applied Mechanics No. 18,
Academic Press, New York.
T. S. Lundgren (1967). Distribution Function in the Statistical Theory of Turbulence, Phys. Fluids 10: 969.
A. S. C. Ma, M. A. Nosier, and D. B. Spalding (1980). Application of the ESKIMO Theory of Turbulent Combustion, AIAA Paper No. 80-0014.
H. McDonald (1979). Combustion Modelling in Two and
Three Dimensions-Some Numerical Considerations,
Prog. Energy Comb. ScL 5:97.
H. Mongia, R. Reynolds, E. Coleman, and T. Bruce (1979).
USARTC-TR-78-55B Combustor Design Criteria Validation, Volume 2-Development Testing of Two FullScale Annular Gas Turbine Combustors.
J. B. Moss (1980). Simultaneous Measurements of Concentration and Velocity in an Open Premixed Turbulent Flame, Combustion Science and Technology 22:
115.
E. E. O'Brien (1980). The Probability Density Function
(pdf) Approach to Reacting Turbulent Flows, in Turbulent Reacting Flows, Topics in Applied Physics.
(P. A. Libby and F. A. Williams, Eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
K. Owen (1976). Measurements and Observations in Turbulent Recirculating Flows, A I A A Journal 14.
S. B. Pope (1976). The Probability Approach to the
Modelling of Turbulent Reacting Flows, Combust.
Flame 27: 299.
S. B. Pope (1977). The Implications of the Probability
Equations for Turbulent Combusting Flows, Combust. Flame 29:235.
S. B. Pope (1980). Monte Carlo Calculations of Premixed
Turbulent Flames, XVlI1th Symposium on Combustion.
S. B. Pope (1981). A Monte Carlo Method for the p.d.f.
Equations of Turbulent Reactive Flow, Combustion
Science and Technology 25:159.
D. T. Pratt (1979). Coalescence Dispersion Modelling
of High Intensity Combustion, J. Energy 3:177.
W. C. Reynolds (1976). Computation of Turbulent Flows,
Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 8:183.
R. P. Rhodes, P. T. Harsha, and C. E. Peters (1974). Turbulent Kinetic Energy and Analysis of Hydrogen-Air
Diffusion Flames, Acta Astronautica 1:443.
M. M. Ribeiro and J. H. Whitelaw (1980a). Coaxial Jets
with and without Swirl, J. Fluid Mech. 96:769.
26
M. M. Ribeiro and J. H. Whitelaw (1980b). The Structure
of Turbulent Jets, Prec. Roy. Soc. A 370:281.
J. M. Richardson, H. C. Howard, and R. W. Smith (1953).
The Relation between Sampling-Tube Measurements
and Concentration Fluctuations in a Turbulent Gas
Jet, I V Symposium (Int.) on Combustion, p. 814.
P. J. Roache (1976). Computation Fluid Dynamics,
Hermosa Publishers, Albuquerque, NM.
G. F. Robinson (1974). Pollutant Formation in Turbulent
Flames, Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern University.
A. K. Runchal and M. Wolfshtein (1969). Numerical Integration Procedure for the Steady-State Navier-Stokes
Equations, J. Mech. Eng. Science 11:445.
U. Schumann, G. Grotzbach, and L. Kleiser (1980). Direct Numerical Simulation of Turbulence, VKI Lecture Series 1979-2, Published by Hemisphere Pub.
Corp. in Prediction Methods ]'or Turbulent Flow
(W. Kollmann, Ed.).
R. M. C. So,D.T. Pratt, and M. D. Hooven (1981). Modelling of Scalar Transport in Turbulent Shear Flows (submitted to Chem. Eng. Sc).