Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T13:57:29.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct numerical simulation of the autoignition of a hydrogen plume in a turbulent coflow of hot air

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2013

S. G. Kerkemeier ,
C. N. Markides ,
C. E. Frouzakis  and
K. Boulouchos
S. G. Kerkemeier
Affiliation:
Aerothermochemistry and Combustion Systems Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Sonneggstrasse 3, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
C. N. Markides
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
C. E. Frouzakis*
Affiliation:
Aerothermochemistry and Combustion Systems Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Sonneggstrasse 3, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
K. Boulouchos
Affiliation:
Aerothermochemistry and Combustion Systems Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Sonneggstrasse 3, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The autoignition of an axisymmetric nitrogen-diluted hydrogen plume in a turbulent coflowing stream of high-temperature air was investigated in a laboratory-scale set-up using three-dimensional numerical simulations with detailed chemistry and transport. The plume was formed by releasing the fuel from an injector with bulk velocity equal to that of the surrounding air coflow. In the ‘random spots’ regime, autoignition appeared randomly in space and time in the form of scattered localized spots from which post-ignition flamelets propagated outwards in the presence of strong advection. Autoignition spots were found to occur at a favourable mixture fraction close to the most reactive mixture fraction calculated a priori from considerations of homogeneous mixtures based on inert mixing of the fuel and oxidizer streams. The value of the favourable mixture fraction evolved in the domain subject to the effect of the scalar dissipation rate. The hydroperoxyl radical appeared as a precursor to the build-up of the radical pool and the ensuing thermal runaway at the autoignition spots. Subsequently, flamelets propagated in all directions with complex dynamics, without anchoring or forming a continuous flame sheet. These observations, as well as the frequency of and scatter in appearance of the spots, are in good agreement with experiments in a similar set-up. In agreement with experimental observations, an increase in turbulence intensity resulted in a downstream shift of autoignition. An attempt is made to understand the key processes that control the mean axial and radial locations of the spots, and are responsible for the observed scatter. The advection of the most reactive mixture through the domain, and hence the history of evolution of the developing radical pools were considered to this effect.

JFM classification

Reacting Flows: Combustion Reacting Flows: Reacting Flows Reacting Flows: Turbulent reacting flows
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 720 , 10 April 2013 , pp. 424 - 456
Copyright
©2013 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

del Álamo, G., Williams, F. A. & Sánchez, A. L. 2004 Hydrogen–oxygen induction times above crossover temperatures. Combust. Sci. Technol. 176 (10), 1599–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baritaud, T. A., Heinze, T. A. & Coz, J. F. Le. 1994 Spray and self-ignition visualization in a DI Diesel engine. SAE Paper, 940681.Google Scholar
Bilger, R. W., Stårner, S. H. & Kee, R. J. 1990 On reduced mechanism for methane – air combustion in nonpremixed flames. Combust. Flame 80 (2), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouch, J. D. & Law, C. K. 2003 Effects of turbulence on nonpremixed ignition in heated counterflow. Combust. Flame 132 (3), 512–522.Google Scholar
Blouch, J. D., Sung, C. J., Fotache, C. G. & Law, C. K. 1998 Turbulent ignition of non-premixed hydrogen by heated counterflowing atmospheric air. Proc. Combust. Inst. 27 (1), 1221–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabra, R., Chen, J.-Y., Dibble, R. W., Karpetis, A. N. & Barlow, R. S. 2005 Lifted methane–air jet flames in a vitiated coflow. Combust. Flame 143 (4), 491–506.Google Scholar
Cabra, R., Myhrvold, T., Chen, J. Y., Dibble, R. W., Karpetis, A. N. & Barlow, R. S. 2002 Simultaneous laser Raman–Rayleigh-LIF measurements and numerical modeling results of a lifted turbulent ${\mathrm{H} }_{2} / {\mathrm{N} }_{2} $ jet flame in a vitiated coflow. Proc. Combust. Inst. 29 (2), 1881–1888.Google Scholar
Conaire, M. Ó., Curran, H. J., Simmie, J. M., Pitz, W. J. & Westbrook, C. K. 2004 A comprehensive modeling study of hydrogen oxidation. Intl J. Chem. Kinet. 36 (11), 603–622.Google Scholar
Dally, B. B., Karpetis, A. N. & Barlow, R. S. 2002 Structure of turbulent nonpremixed jet flames in a diluted hot coflow. Proc. Combust. Inst. 29 (1), 1147–1154.Google Scholar
Deville, M. O., Fischer, P. F. & Mund, E. H. 2002 High-order Methods for Incompressible Fluid Flows. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Echekki, T. & Chen, J. H. 2003 Direct numerical simulations of auto-ignition in non-homogeneous hydrogen–air mixtures. Combust. Flame 134 (3), 169–191.Google Scholar
Fischer, P. F., Lottes, J. W. & Kerkemeier, S. G. 2011 nek5000 web page http://nek5000.mcs.anl.gov.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. H. 1968 Fine structure of scalar fields mixed by turbulence: I. Zero-gradient points and minimal gradient surfaces. Phys. Fluids 11 (11), 2305–2315.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. L., Masri, A. R. & Mastorakos, E. 2008 Simultaneous Rayleigh temperature, OH- and ${\mathrm{CH} }_{2} $ O-LIF imaging of methane jets in a vitiated coflow. Combust. Flame 155 (1–2), 181–195.Google Scholar
Hilbert, R. & Thèvenin, D. 2002 Autoignition of turbulent non-premixed flames investigated using direct numerical simulations. Combust. Flame 128 (1–2), 22–37.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, A. C., Brown, P. N., Grant, K. E., Lee, S. L., Serban, R., Shumaker, D. E. & Woodward, C. S. 2005 SUNDIALS: suite of nonlinear and differential/algebraic equation solvers. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 31 (3), 363–396.Google Scholar
Huang, M.-J. & Leonard, A. 1994 Power-law decay of homogeneous turbulence at low Reynolds numbers. Phys. Fluids 6 (11), 3765–3775.Google Scholar
Im, H. G., Chen, J. H. & Law, C. K. 1998 Ignition of hydrogen–air mixing layer in turbulent flows. Proc. Combust. Inst. 27, 1047–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerkemeier, S. G. 2010 Direct numerical simulation of combustion on petascale platforms: application to turbulent non-premixed hydrogen autoignition. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kim, I. S. 2004 Conditional moment closure for non-premixed turbulent combustion. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Klein, M., Sadiki, A. & Janicka, J. 2003 A digital filter based generation of inflow data for spatially developing direct numerical or large eddy simulations. J. Comput. Phys. 186 (2), 652–665.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. Y. & Pope, S. B. 1995 Nonpremixed turbulent reacting flow near extinction. Combust. Flame 101 (4), 501–528.Google Scholar
Lemoine, F., Antoine, Y., Wolff, M. & Lebouche, M. 2000 Some experimental investigations on the concentration variance and its dissipation rate in a grid generated turbulent flow. Intl J. Heat Mass Transfer. 43 (7), 1187–1199.Google Scholar
Li, J., Zhao, Z., Kazakov, A. & Dryer, F. L. 2004 An updated comprehensive kinetic model of hydrogen combustion. Intl J. Chem. Kinet. 36 (10), 566–575.Google Scholar
Liñán, A. & Crespo, A. 1976 An asymptotic analysis of unsteady diffusion flames for large activation energies. Combust. Sci. Technol. 14 (1), 95–117.Google Scholar
Lu, T. F., Yoo, C. S., Chen, J. H. & Law, C. K. 2010 Three-dimensional direct numerical simulations of a turbulent lifted hydrogen jet flame in heated coflow: a chemical explosive mode analysis. J. Fluid Mech. 652, 45–64.Google Scholar
Markides, C. N. 2005 Autoignition in turbulent flows. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Markides, C. N. & Mastorakos, E. 2005 An experimental study of hydrogen autoignition in a turbulent co-flow of heated air. Proc. Comb. Inst. 30 (1), 883–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markides, C. N. & Mastorakos, E. 2006 Measurements of scalar dissipation in a turbulent plume with planar laser-induced fluorescence of acetone. Chem. Engng Sci. 61 (9), 2835–2842.Google Scholar
Markides, C. N. & Mastorakos, E. 2008a Flame propagation following the autoignition of axisymmetric hydrogen, acetylene and normal-heptane plumes in turbulent co-flows of hot air. J. Engng Gas Turbine Power 130, 011502.Google Scholar
Markides, C. N. & Mastorakos, E. 2008b Measurements of the statistical distribution of the scalar dissipation rate in turbulent axisymmetric plumes. Flow Turb. Combust. 81 (1–2), 221–234.Google Scholar
Markides, C. N. & Mastorakos, E. 2011 Experimental investigation of the effects of turbulence and mixing on autoignition chemistry. Flow Turbul. Combust. 86 (3–4), 585–608.Google Scholar
Markides, C. N., de Paola, G. & Mastorakos, E. 2007 Measurements and simulations of mixing and autoignition of an $n$ -heptane plume in a turbulent flow of heated air. Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 31 (5), 393–401.Google Scholar
Mastorakos, E. 2009 Ignition of turbulent non-premixed flames. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 35 (1), 57–97.Google Scholar
Mastorakos, E., Baritaud, T. A. & Poinsot, T. J. 1997a Numerical simulations of autoignition in turbulent mixing flows. Combust. Flame 109 (1–3), 198–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastorakos, E., da Cruz, A. P., Baritaud, T. A. & Poinsot, T. J. 1997b A model for the effects of mixing on the autoignition of turbulent flows. Comb. Sci. Technol. 125 (1–6), 243–282.Google Scholar
Medwell, P. R., Kalt, P. A. M. & Dally, B. B. 2007 Simultaneous imaging of $oh$ , formaldehyde, and temperature of turbulent nonpremixed jet flames in a heated and diluted coflow. Combust. Flame 148 (1–2), 48–61.Google Scholar
Medwell, P. R., Kalt, P. A. M. & Dally, B. B. 2008 Imaging of diluted turbulent ethylene flames stabilised on a jet in hot coflow (JHC) burner. Combust. Flame 152 (1–2), 100–113.Google Scholar
Mizutani, Y., Nakabe, K. & Chung, J. D. 1990 Effects of turbulent mixing on spray ignition. Proc. Combust. Inst. 23 (1), 1455–1460.Google Scholar
Mohamed, M. S. & LaRue, J. C. 1990 The decay power law in grid-generated turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 219, 195–214.Google Scholar
Moin, P. & Mahesh, K. 1998 Direct numerical simulation: a tool in turbulence research. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 30, 539–578.Google Scholar
Nakamura, I., Sakai, Y. & Miyata, M. 1987 Diffusion of matter by a non-buoyant plume in grid-generated turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 178, 379–403.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. E. & Jiang, T.-L. 1991 The conditional dissipation rate of an initially binary scalar in homogeneous turbulence. Phys. Fluids A 3 (12), 3121–3123.Google Scholar
Oldenhof, E., Tummers, M. J., van Veen, E. H. & Roekaerts, D. J. E. M. 2010 Ignition kernel formation and lift-off behaviour of jet-in-hot-coflow flames. Combust. Flame 157 (6), 1167–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, N. 1983 Local quenching due to flame stretch and non-premixed turbulent combustion. Combust. Sci. Technol. 30 (1–6), 1–17.Google Scholar
Pizza, G., Frouzakis, C. E., Mantzaras, J., Tomboulides, A. G. & Boulouchos, K. 2010 Three-dimensional simulations of premixed hydrogen/air flames in microtubes. J. Fluid Mech. 658, 463–491.Google Scholar
Pope, S. B. 2000 Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sreedhara, S. & Lakshmisha, K. N. 2000 Direct numerical simulation of autoignition in a nonpremixed, turbulent medium. Proc. Combust. Inst. 28 (1), 25–33.Google Scholar
Sreedhara, S. & Lakshmisha, K. N. 2002 Assessment of conditional moment closure models for turbulent autoignition using DNS data. Proc. Combust. Inst. 29 (2), 2051–2059.Google Scholar
Sutton, O. G. 1932 A theory of eddy diffusion in the atmosphere. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 135 (826), 143–165.Google Scholar
Tomboulides, A. G., Lee, J. C. Y. & Orzag, S. A. 1997 Numerical simulation of low Mach number reactive flows. J. Sci. Comput. 12, 139–167.Google Scholar
Viggiano, A. & Magi, V. 2004 A 2-D investigation of $n$ -heptane autoignition by means of direct numerical simulation. Combust. Flame 137 (4), 432–443.Google Scholar
Wong, C. L. & Steere, D. E. 1982 The effects of diesel fuel properties and engine operating conditions on ignition delay. SAE Paper, 821231.Google Scholar
Wu, Z., Masri, A. R. & Bilger, R. W. 2006 An experimental investigation of the turbulence structure of a lifted ${\mathrm{H} }_{2} / {\mathrm{N} }_{2} $ jet flame in a vitiated co-flow. Flow Turbul. Combust. 76 (1), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yetter, R. A., Dryer, F. L. & Rabitz, H. 1991 A comprehensive reaction mechanism for carbon monoxide/hydrogen/oxygen kinetics. Combust. Sci. Technol. 79 (1–3), 97–128.Google Scholar
Yoo, C. S., Richardson, E. S., Chen, R. & Sankaran, J. H. 2011 A DNS study on the stabilization mechanism of a turbulent lifted ethylene jet flame in highly-heated coflow. Proc. Combust. Inst. 33 (1), 1619–1627.Google Scholar
Yoo, C. S., Sankaran, R. & Chen, J. H. 2009 Three-dimensional direct numerical simulation of a turbulent lifted hydrogen jet flame in heated coflow: flame stabilization and structure. J. Fluid Mech. 640, 453–481.Google Scholar