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.
Zukoski EE and Marble FE, Combustion researches and reviews. Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research and Development, 1957.
2.
Zukoski EE and Marble FE. Experiments concerning the mechanism of flame blowoff form bluff bodies. In: Proceedings of the Gas Dynamics Symposium on Aerothermochemistry, 1983, pp.205–210.
3.
PleeSLMellorAM. Characteristic time correlation for lean blowoff of bluff-body-stabilized flames. Combust Flame1979; 35: 61–80.
4.
LeonardPAMellorAM. Correlation of lean blowoff of gas turbine combustors using alternative fuels. J Energy1983; 7: 729–732.
5.
LongwellJPWeissMA. High temperature reaction rates in hydrocarbon combustion. Ind Eng Chem1955; 47: 1634–1643.
6.
LongwellJPFrostEEWeissMA. Flame stability in bluff body recirculation zones. Ind Eng Chem1953; 45: 1629–1633.
7.
BallalDRLefebvreAH. Weak extinction limits of turbulent flowing mixtures. J Eng Power1979; 101: 343–348.
8.
RizkNKLefebvreAH. The relationship between flame stability and drag of bluff-body flame holders. J Propul Power1986; 2: 361–365.
9.
LefebvreAHStwalleyRM. Flame stabilization using large flameholders of irregular shape. J Propul Power1988; 4: 4–13.
LefebvreAH. Fuel effects on gas turbine combustion – ignition, stability, and combustion efficiency. J Eng Gas Turbines Power1985; 107: 24–37.
12.
ShanbhogueSJHusainSLieuwenT. Lean blowoff of bluff body stabilized flames: scaling and dynamics. Prog Energy Combust Sci2009; 35: 98–120.
13.
Menon S, Stone C and Patel N. Multi-scale modeling for LES of engineering designs of large-scale combustors. In: 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, 2004. 5-8 January 2004, Reno Nevada, USA, pp.0157.
14.
Black DL and Smith CE. Transient lean blowout modeling of an aero low emission fuel injector. In: 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference, 2003. 20-23 July 2003, Huntsville, Alabama, USA, pp.4520.
15.
KimWWLienauJLSlootenPRV, et al.Towards modeling lean blow out in gas turbine flameholder application. J Eng Gas Turb Power2006; 128: 40–48.
16.
Gokulakrishnan P, Bikkani R, Klassen MS, et al. Influence of turbulence-chemistry interaction in blow-out prediction of bluff-body stabilized flames. In: 47th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, 2009. 5-8 January 2009, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp.1179.
17.
Luo K, Desjardins O and Pitsch H. DNS of droplet evaporation and combustion in a swirling combustor. Center for Turbulence Research, Annual Research Briefs, 2008, pp.253–265.
18.
Sturgess GJ and Shouse DT. A hybrid model for calculating lean blow-outs in practical combustion. In: 32nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference, 1996. Atlanta, GA, USA, 16–20 June 2014, pp.3125.
19.
MongiaHCReynoldsRSSrinivasanR. Multi-dimensional gas turbine combustion modeling applications and limitations. AIAA J2015; 24: 890–904.
20.
Knaus D, Magari P, Hill R, et al. Predicting augmentor static stability using local damkohler number. In: 46th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, 2008. 13–17 June 2016, Washington, DC, USA, pp.1027.
21.
HuHuangYWangF. FIA method for LBO limit predictions of aero-engine combustors based on FV model. Aerosp Sci Technol2013; 28: 435–446.
22.
HuHuangYXuJ. A hybrid semi-empirical model for lean blow-out limit predictions of aero-engine combustors. J Eng Gas Turb Power2015; 137: 031502–031502.
23.
HuBZhaoQXuJ. Predicting lean blowout limit of combustors based on semi-empirical correlation and simulation. J Propul Power2015; 32: 1–13.
24.
ZhengHZhangZLiY, et al.Feature-parameter-criterion for predicting lean blowout limit of gas turbine combustor and bluff body burner. Math Prob Eng2013; 4: 1–17.
25.
Wang Z, Hu B, Zhao Q, et al. Towards predicting lean blow-off based on Damköhler number and practical reaction zone. In: ASME Turbo Expo 2017: turbomachinery technical conference and exposition, 2017. 26–30 June 2017, Charlotte, NC, USA, pp.V04AT04A039.
26.
XieFHuangYHuB, et al.Improved semiempirical correlation to predict lean blowout limits for gas turbine combustors. J Propul Power2012; 28: 197–203.
27.
KhalilAEEGuptaAK. Hydroxyl radical distribution in distributed reaction combustion condition. Fuel2014; 122: 28–35.
28.
StöhrMBoxxICarterC, et al.Dynamics of lean blowout of a swirl-stabilized flame in a gas turbine model combustor. Proc Combust Inst2011; 33: 2953–2960.
29.
Kundu K, Penko P and Yang S. Reduced reaction mechanism for numerical calculation in combustion of hydrocarbon fuels. In: 36th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, 1998. 12-15 January 1998, Reno, NV, USA, pp.803.
30.
ShihTHLiouWWShabbirA, et al.A new k–ε eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows. Comput Fluids1995; 24: 227–238.
31.
PetersN. Laminar diffusion flamelet models in non-premixed turbulent combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci1984; 10: 319–339.
32.
BallalDRLefebvreAH. Flame propagation in heterogeneous mixtures of fuel droplets, fuel vapor and air. Symp (Int) Combust1981; 18: 321–328.
