Evaluation of gas radiation heat transfer in a 2D axisymmetric geometry using the line-by-line integration and WSGG models

Numerical simulations of the radiative transfer in a 2D axisymmetric turbulent non-premixed methane–air flame using up-to-date WSGG and gray-gas models

“…3a-c and as corroborated by the results that will be presented later in Tables 6 and 7. Besides, Centeno et al [40] employed CR-WSGG and NCR-WSGG in a computation of the radiative heat source term using prescribed fields of temperature, H 2 O and CO 2 , and found average and maximum errors of 1.6 and 8.5 % for the CR-WSGG and of 1.4 and 6.6 % for the NCR-WSGG, respectively, as compared to line-by-line calculations employing HITEMP 2010 database. From [40] results, it could be implied that errors related to graygas model, when comparing the radiative heat source term with line-by-line calculations, are much higher than those for CR-or NCR-WSGG models.…”

Numerical solutions of radiative heat transfer in combustion systems using a parallel modified discrete ordinates method and several recent formulations of WSGG model

“…This second test case deals with a cylindrical combustion chamber studied numerically by Centeno et al [31]. A natural gas combustion is used in a 600 kW furnace [32,33] to generate a realistic non-isothermal and non-homogeneous flame.…”

Coal and biomass cofiring

“…Such refinements can yield about 6% difference in the total emissivity compared to the original EWBM (Yin, 2016). It needs to be emphasized that the accuracy of a specific CFD-oriented gas radiative property model (including the E-EWBM) can only be assessed by the comparison with the most comprehensive and accurate approach such as the line-by-line approach (Centeno et al, 2015). Besides the E-EWBM, some other models, such as the spectral-line-based weighted-sum-of-graygases and the full-spectrum k-distribution method (Modest, 2003), are also practically accurate, computationally competitive and able to address the practical limitations of the WSGGMs.…”