Simulation of Methanol-Air Two-Phase Flames Using Various Turbulent Combustion Models

Though fossil fuel is running out, liquid fuels nowadays still provide the most energy used by industrial furnaces, automotive and aero engines. How to predict a two-phase turbulent combustion flame is still a big problem to designers. Generally, the liquid fuel is sprayed and mixed with oxygen, and the flame characteristics depends on the fuel atomization, the fuel droplet spatial distribution, and its interaction with the turbulent oxidizer flow field: turbulent heat, mass and momentum transfer, complicated chemical kinetics, and turbulent-chemistry interaction. Turbulent combustion model is a key point for the two phase combustion simulation. For its short time consuming, Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) method nowadays still is the major tool for gas turbine chamber (GTC) designers, but there is not a universal method in RANS GTC spray combustion simulation at present especially for the two-phase turbulent combustion. The Eddy-Break-Up turbulent combustion model (EBU), Eddy Dissipation Concept turbulent combustion model (EDC), steady Laminar Flame-let turbulent combustion Model (LFM) and the Composition PDF transport turbulent combustion model (CPDF) are all widely used models. In this paper, these four turbulent models are used to simulate a methane-air turbulent jet flame measured by Sandia Lab first, then three methanol-air two-phase turbulent flames, in order to know the ability of these turbulent models. In the gas turbulent jet flame simulation, the result of LFM model and CPDF model are in better agreement with the experimental data than those of the EBU and the EDC models’ results. The reason is that the EBU model and EDC model are overestimated the effect of turbulent. In the three different cases of the two phase combustion simulation, CPDF is the best. The prediction ability of the other three models is different in different cases. The EDC predictions are closer to the experimental data when the air flow rate value is lower, whereas the LFM predictions are better when the air flow rate value is higher.