Predicting Lean Blowout Limit of Combustors Based on Semi-Empirical Correlation and Simulation

Hu, Bin; Zhao, Qingjun; Xu, Jianzhong

doi:10.2514/1.b35583

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lefebvre's model was recently further developed. Hu et al and Xie et al [31][32][33][34] related lean blowout to the volume of the flame instead of the volume of the combustor and Ateshkadi et al 35 took the nozzle hardware into consideration and modified the temperature dependence term. 26 Characteristics timescales were used by Plee and Mellor 36 to describe lean blowout of bluff-body stabilised spray flames.…”

Section: Lean Blowout and Fuel Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of differences in lean blowout of liquid single-component fuels in a gas turbine model combustor

Grohmann¹,

Rauch²,

Kathrotia³

et al. 2016

52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of selected single-component hydrocarbons on lean blowout behaviour of swirl-stabilised spray flames was investigated. Additional information on the spray characteristics was collected by Phase Doppler Anemometry (PDA) and Mie scattering measurements. The measurements were accomplished in a gas turbine model combustor under atmospheric pressure and at two different air preheat temperatures. The combustor featured a dual-swirl geometry and a prefilming airblast atomiser. The combustion chamber provided good optical access and yielded well-defined boundary conditions. Three singlecomponent hydrocarbons were chosen: one short and one long linear alkane (n-hexane and n-dodecane) and one branched alkane (iso-octane). Kerosene Jet A-1 was used as a technical reference. Results show noticeable differences in the lean blowout limits of the various fuels, at comparable flow conditions. By using the results of the measurements, of additional modelling and of an assessment of the fuel properties it was concluded that fuel differences in lean blowout in this combustor can be due to differences in the physical properties as well as in the chemical properties.

show abstract

Section: Lean Blowout and Fuel Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of differences in lean blowout of liquid single-component fuels in a gas turbine model combustor

Grohmann¹,

Rauch²,

Kathrotia³

et al. 2016

52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lefebvre's model was recently further developed. Hu et al and Xie et al [21,22] related lean blowout to the volume of the flame instead of the volume of the combustor and Ateshkadi et al [23] took the nozzle hardware into consideration and modified the temperature dependence term. [16] Characteristics timescales were used by Plee and Mellor [24] to describe lean blowout of bluff-body stabilized spray flames.…”

Section: Lean Blowout and Fuel Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Single-Component Fuels on Gas-Turbine Model Combustor Lean Blowout

Grohmann

Rauch

Kathrotia

et al. 2018

Journal of Propulsion and Power

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of selected single-component hydrocarbons on lean blowout behavior of swirl-stabilized spray flames was investigated. Additional information on the spray characteristics was collected by Phase Doppler Interferometry (PDI) and Mie scattering measurements. The measurements were accomplished in a gas turbine model combustor under atmospheric pressure and at two different air preheat temperatures.The combustor featured a dual-swirl geometry and a prefilming airblast atomizer. The combustion chamber provided good optical access and yielded well-defined boundary conditions. Three single-component hydrocarbons were chosen: one short and one long linear alkane (n-hexane and n-dodecane) and one branched alkane (iso-octane).Kerosene Jet A-1 was used as a reference. Results show noticeable differences in the lean blowout limits of the various fuels, at comparable flow conditions. By using the results of the measurements, of additional modelling and of an assessment of the fuel properties it was concluded that fuel differences in lean blowout in this combustor can be due to differences in the physical properties as well as in the chemical properties. \phi = global equivalence ratio (-) P th = thermal power (W) \rho = density ( \mathrm{ \mathrm{ /\mathrm{ 3 ) Re = Reynolds number (-) \sigma = surface tension ( \mathrm{ /\mathrm{ ) S = geometrical swirl number (-) t e = total evaporation time (s) T = temperature (K) u, v, w = velocities in reference coordinate system ( \mathrm{ /\mathrm{ ) x, y, z = reference coordinate system (m) I. IntroductionProduction pathways for alternative aviation fuels offer the possibility to modify the chemical composition of the final product in order to improve physical and chemical properties for optimized combustion performance. Depending on feedstock (e.g. coal, natural gas or biomass) and process parameters, alternative fuels can contain hydrocarbons of significantly different types and chain lengths [1,2]. However, the influence of the chemical composition of the fuel on combustion performance is not fully understood [3].Four main processes govern the combustion of liquid fuels in gas turbine combustors: atomization, vaporization, turbulent mixing and chemical reaction. These processes happen simultane-

show abstract

“…Characteristic Point model, 21 Fuel Iterative Approximation model, 22 Characteristic Curve of Fame Volume model. 23 Zheng et al. considered the iso-surface of zero axial velocity as the critical zone in LBO process and named it Feature-Section.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting lean blow-off limit of gas turbine combustors based on Damköhler number and detailed atomization information

Wang

Fang

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A:

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A hybrid lean blow-off prediction method based on Damköhler ( Da) number was proposed in the authors’ previous study. However, the uniform model for fuel drop size distribution cannot fully reflect the actual atomization quality under lean blow-off conditions, which has negative effects on prediction accuracy. In the current study, atomization experiments are conducted under different fuel supply pressure. The atomization quality is described by Rosin–Rammler model and is integrated into numerical simulation. The calculation method of chemical time scale ( τc) is improved by accurately differentiating the inlet and outlet surface of reaction zone. After the improvement, the Da number under lean blow-off conditions mainly lies between 0.3 and 0.8, while under the designing condition, the Da number is about 20. Compared with the former method, the optimized method in the present article can distinguish stable combustion states markedly from lean blow-off states. Through the introduction of detailed atomization information and the improvement of time scale calculation, lean blow-off prediction accuracy in the present work is efficiently improved, which can provide powerful technical support for engineering applications.

show abstract

Predicting Lean Blowout Limit of Combustors Based on Semi-Empirical Correlation and Simulation

Cited by 11 publications

References 36 publications

Investigation of differences in lean blowout of liquid single-component fuels in a gas turbine model combustor

Investigation of differences in lean blowout of liquid single-component fuels in a gas turbine model combustor

Influence of Single-Component Fuels on Gas-Turbine Model Combustor Lean Blowout

Predicting lean blow-off limit of gas turbine combustors based on Damköhler number and detailed atomization information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About