See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282633527

The usability and limits of the steady flamelet

approach in oxy-fuel combustions

Article in Energy July 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.103

CITATIONS READS

3 57

4 authors, including:

Bernhard Mayr Rene Prieler

Graz University of Technology Graz University of Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Coupled CFD-FEM simulations of combustion processes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rene Prieler on 06 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

The usability and limits of the steady amelet approach in oxy-fuel

combustions
Bernhard Mayr a, *, Rene Prieler a, Martin Demuth b, Christoph Hochenauer a
a
Institute of Thermal Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse 25/B, A-8010 Graz, Austria
b
Messer Austria GmbH e Kompetenzzentrum Metallurgie, Industriestrae 5, A-2352 Gumpoldskirchen, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates two furnaces which work under oxy-fuel condition with natural gas. One is a
Received 20 October 2014 0.8 MW furnace where detailed iname measurements are available. The other furnace is an 11.5 kW lab-
Received in revised form scale furnace with temperature measurements. The furnaces were investigated by CFD (Computational
17 March 2015
uid dynamics) analysis. The main focus was on using combustion models that are not computationally
Accepted 27 June 2015
Available online 21 July 2015
demanding. Therefore the SFM (steady amelet) approach was used with two detailed mechanisms. The
advantage of the SFM is that the calculation time can be reduced from 4 weeks to 4 days on 8 CPU-cores.
The applicability of two detailed mechanisms under oxy-fuel condition is pointed out in this paper. The
Keywords:
Oxy-NG combustion
investigation showed that the skeletal25 mechanism and the SFM are in very good accordance with
Computational uid dynamics measurements. If the strain rate between CH4 and O2 stream is too low, the SFM fails to predict the ame
Combustion kinetic shape correctly. The inuence of three different turbulence models was also investigated. Furthermore
Steady amelet simulations with the eddy dissipation model and numerically expensive eddy dissipation concept model
Limits of steady amelet were conducted. Different WSGGM (weighted sum of grey gases model) were applied. The comparison of
the WSGGMs showed that the difference between them is insignicant for small furnaces.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In times of rising fuel prices and global warming, oxy-fuel
combustion can be seen as a vast opportunity to optimize the
processes of many industrial applications. Oxy-fuel combustion is
also a promising technology to reduce global CO2 emissions. CO2 is
mainly produced by fossil fuels, which are accountable for 85% of
global energy production [1]. CO2 can also be emitted by chemical
reaction in industrial processes i.e. cement clinker formation, 68%
CO2 is emitted from carbonates and only 32% by combustion [2].
Flue gas mainly consists of CO2 and H2O when using pure oxygen as
an oxidant. This can be used to reduce CO2 emission into the at-
mosphere by CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies. Some
technical and economic studies show that oxy-fuel and CCS could
be an upcoming technology in the near future [3e5]. In industries
with high temperature application, like glass, steel or cement in-
dustries, oxy-fuel or oxygen-enriched air combustion technologies
are already used [6]. The absence of N2 leads to a higher combustion
temperature in comparison to conventional air-ring, and this also
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 43 316 873 7804.
E-mail address: bernhard.mayr@tugraz.at (B. Mayr).
enhances the energy efciency, e.g., Oliveira et al. [7] showed that
in metal reheating furnaces with a temperature level of 1200
C the
fuel consumption could be reduced by 46% if pure oxygen was used
instead of air for the combustion. Experiments carried out by
Blohradsk et al. [8] on a test facility with a natural gas burner
showed a similar trend. With increasing oxygen concentration in
the oxidizer the energy efciency increased from 60% at 21% O2 to
78% at 38% O2. Numerical calculations and experiments carried out
on a lab-scale furnace with a thermal load by Prieler et al. [9] also
showed an increase of the efciency from 44% at 25% O2 to 67%
at 100% O2. In conventional power generating processes, the
maximum temperature is limited through high stresses, i.e. for gas
turbines 1600 K [10]. To control the ame temperature and to
substitute missing N2, the oxidant in power plants is a mixture of
oxygen and recycled ue gas (wet or dry ue gas). Through recy-
cling ue gas, the heat transfer in the convection zone of the boiler
should be approximately the same as under air red condition. The
total heat transfer characteristic is considerably different compared
to air combustion under oxy-fuel condition, with or without recy-
cling of ue gas, the radiative heat transfer is strongly promoted by
the much higher level of CO2 and H2O [11e13]. Despite the above
mentioned reviews about CCS and the use of oxy-fuel in power
plants, the main focus of this work was to investigate high

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.103
0360-5442/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489
temperature processes under oxy-fuel conditions. In high temper-
ature processes, as in melting processes, NG (natural gas) is mainly
used as fuel. Due to the higher concentration of H2O therefore, ue
gas is considerably different than in CCS and in power plants under
oxy-fuel condition. The ratio of H2O and CO2 is 0.125 for CCS (i.e. dry
ue gas recycling) and for oxy-fuel combustion of NG the ratio
equals 2 and is therefore considerably different.
CFD (Computational uid dynamics) are mainly used to inves-
tigate heat transfer, uid ow and combustion behaviour. With the
aid of computer power that has strongly increased in recent years,
it is now possible to perform numerical calculation of industrial
processes, which also provides a good opportunity to get a better
understanding of combustion behaviour and heat transfer under
oxy-fuel conditions. Commercial CFD codes have many models for
transport and heat transfer problems in furnaces. The main goal is
to nd the right models to simulate combustion accurately. In
combustion modelling, chemistry and radiative heat transfer were
identied to have the greatest impact on the solution. The aim is to
nd radiation and combustion models that are in good accordance
with measurements and are not computationally demanding.
Global mechanisms have been successfully used in the past for
simulations of air-red furnaces. Very popular are the two global
mechanisms by Westbrook and Dryer (WD) [14], which is a 2-step
mechanism, and the mechanism postulated by Jones and Lindstedt
(JL) [15] which contains 4-steps. In oxy-fuel combustion, the for-
mation of radicals is mainly promoted by the high temperature. In
the WD and JL mechanisms these radicals are only considered in
the burning rates and not explicitly in the reactions. That means
that for the radicals no conservation equations are solved explicitly.
Yin et al. [16] performed chemical calculation with WD and JL
mechanisms under oxy-fuel and air-fuel condition and compared it
with a detailed mechanism. The results of this calculation showed
that the adiabatic ame temperature for the WD and JL mechanism
are in a good agreement with the detailed mechanism for air-fuel
condition. In the case of oxy-fuel combustion, the adiabatic ame
temperature was massively overestimated (300e500 K). It was
concluded that neglected radical formation in the reactions was the
reason for the overestimation of the adiabatic ame temperature.
Frassoldati et al. [17] did a similar investigation and came to the
same conclusion as Yin et al. They rened the JL mechanism to
consider the radicals H, OH and O in the reactions. The temperature
prole calculated with the rened mechanism ts well with the
detailed mechanism. Glarborg and Bentzen [18] conducted further
investigations on the inuence of radicals under oxy-fuel condition.
They studied the dissociation of CO2 with the radicals H, OH, O as
well as hydrocarbon radicals. The study showed that CO also
occurred at higher temperatures due to the thermal dissociation of
CO2. It can be concluded that the presence of radicals and high
temperature in oxy-fuel combustion has a great inuence on the
correct prediction of CO concentration in the furnace but it must
not be overlooked that most of the CO production occurs bevor CO2
production (see equations (1) and (2)). Andersen et al. [19] per-
formed simulation in a plug-ow reactor under oxy-fuel condition
with the WD and JL mechanism. As a reference they also calculated
the plug-ow reactor with the detailed mechanism proposed by
Glarborg and Bentzen [18]. The global mechanisms were rened to
improve the prediction of the species concentration in the plug-
ow simulation and as well as in the CFD simulation of a propane
oxy-fuel ame. The adapted mechanisms showed a good prediction
of the CO concentration with a lower computational time compared
to detail mechanism.
As mentioned before, radiation heat transfer is a very crucial
part in modelling furnaces. The models for the radiative properties
of gases, which are implemented in the most commercial CFD
codes, are developed for air-fuel condition. In air-fuel condition the
1479
concentration of radiative active gases like CO2 and H2O is low due
to the high concentration of N2. This makes it possible to consider
the ue gases as a grey gas without spectral dependence. It also has
to be mentioned that this assumption can lead to a temperature
under prediction of 100 up to 150 K even in air-fuel condition
[20,21]. The concentration of CO2 and H2O are far higher under oxy-
fuel condition due to the lack of N2 which leads to a strong spectral
dependence. Therefore, most models for radiative properties used
in commercial CFD codes are out of their validation range. There are
mainly three different types of models to describe the radiative
properties of gases. These are the line-by-line method, band models
and global methods. For CFD calculation, global methods are widely
used due to the low computational effort. One of these global
methods is the WSGGM (weighted sum of grey gases model) rst
proposed by Hottel and Sarom [22]. In this model, the non-grey
gas is assumed to be a mixture of a number of grey gases,
weighted by factors. These factors are derived from more accurate
models like the line-by-line methods or the banded models, which
are computationally highly demanding. Becher et al. [12] compared
different LBL (line-by-line) models (HITEMP2010 [23], HITEMP1995
[24], HITRAN2008 [25], HITRAN2004 [26]) and band models (EM2C
[27], RADCAL [28], EWB [29]) with gas cell experiments. The
comparison showed that the HITEMP2010 is the most accurate one
with regard to concentration and temperature. The band models
are less accurate but not so computationally demanding. In CFD
codes, the WSGGM proposed by Smith et al. [30] is widely used.
This WSGGM was derived for a H2O/CO2 ratio of 1 and 2, path
lengths up to 10 m and for temperatures between 600 and 2400 K
from a banded model (EWB). Yin et al. [31] investigated the
WSGGM from Smith for different H2O/CO2 ratios, path lengths and
temperature. The WSGGM showed high deviation for small H2O/
CO2 ratios and large beam lengths. Similar investigations were done
by Becher et al. [32]; they compared the WSGGM with the very
accurate LBL model (HITEMP2010). The WSGGM showed a
maximum deviation of 59% under oxy-fuel conditions. This is the
reason why many new WSGGM have been published for oxy-fuel
condition recently [13,31,33e37]. These new chemical approaches
and the new radiation models were tested for different furnaces.
Yin et al. [16] simulates a 0.8 MW furnace (which will be investi-
gated in this study as well) and a 609 MW boiler with different
combustion mechanisms and two WSGGMs. The simulation
showed that the different WSGGMs make a negligible difference for
small-scale furnaces because of the small beam length. For bigger
furnaces, the WSGGMs showed a higher deviation from each other.
Another work published by Galletti et al. [38] focused on oxy-fuel
combustion. The authors investigated a 3 MW semi-industrial
furnace equipped with a low NOx burner. The aim of this study
was to validate the different sub models (e.g. combustion/kinetics
and radiation/spectral) under oxy-natural-gas red conditions by
comparing of prediction and measurements. Global combustion
mechanisms were applied just like WD and JL as well as the rened
mechanism proposed by Anderson et al. [19]. They used two WSGG
models with coefcients from Refs. [13,39] to calculate the radiative
properties. Results showed a better agreement with the rened
global mechanism and with WSGG model optimized for oxy-fuel
conditions.
It can be seen that lots of investigations have been done so far
on oxy-fuel combustion and radiation under oxy-fuel condition.
Most researchers used global mechanisms with a maximum of 6-
steps to reduce the calculation time. However, most of these
global mechanisms were derived for air-fuel combustion and were
therefore insufcient for oxy-fuel combustion. New rened global
mechanisms were derived for oxy-fuel combustion, but these
mechanisms are not as good as detailed mechanisms. The aim of
this paper is to use detailed chemical kinetic by using the SFM
1480 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489
(steady amelet) and different WSGGM with little computational
effort. Using the steady SFM, calculation time can be reduced from
4 weeks with EDC (eddy dissipation concept) (which is mainly
used by other authors) to 4 days on 8 CPU-cores. In this research
the limits of the SFM are also investigated. The furnaces examined
in this paper are a 0.8 MW furnace and an 11.5 kW lab scale
furnace. The results of the simulations were compared with
measurements.
2. The furnaces under simulations
2.1. IFRF 0.8 MW oxy-NG ame furnace
The furnace has a cross-section of 1.05  1.05 m and a length of
3.44 m (internal dimension), as shown in Fig. 1. The NG (natural
gas) was supplied by a 16 mm tube. Oxygen was fed through an
annulus tube into the combustion chamber with an inner diameter
of 28 mm and an outer diameter of 36 mm. The diameter of the
chimney is 500 mm. The thermal input is about 0.8 MW and the
furnace operates at slightly over pressure of 3 mm H2O to prevent
air leaking in. The properties of the fuel red in furnace, operating
condition and the measured temperatures are listed in Table 1.
These are the main input data for the CFD simulation. Additional
information about the furnace and ame can be found in
Refs. [40e44].
2.2. VO2 furnace
This lab-scale furnace is equipped with a Messer Oxipyr-Flex
burner with a thermal input of 11.5 kW. Fig. 2 shows a 3D model of
the furnace. The natural gas was supplied to the combustion
chamber through a 3.5 mm tube. Oxygen is supplied through an
annulus tube with an inner diameter of 10.5 mm and outer diam-
eter of 15 mm. The internal dimension of the combustion chamber
is 0.77  0.75  0.99 m, which is surrounded by an approximately
0.2 m thick ceramic insulation. The outlet of the furnace is a semi-
circle with a diameter of 0.33 m. The temperature in the furnace
was measured by ve type B thermocouples. The position of these
thermocouples can be seen in Fig. 3. The furnace operated under a
positive pressure of 0.4 mbar. Further information about the
furnace can be found in Ref. [45].
Fig. 1. 3D model of the IFRF 0.8 MW Oxy-NG ame furnace used in the simulation
(units in mm).
3. CFD modelling
3.1. Flow modelling
The uid ow in the furnaces was calculated by a steady-state
CFD simulation using a pressure-based solver. Numerical simula-
tions were performed with the commercial code ANSYS FLUENT 14.
The ow is calculated by solving the RANS (Reynolds-averaged
NaviereStokes) equations. To solve the RANS equations it is
necessary to have turbulence models to close the RANS equations.
There are many turbulence models available in commercial CFD
codes. Two equation models are widely used for simulation of in-
dustrial application. In this simulation the standard k-, the real-
izable k- and the Reynolds stress model were used. Pressure-
velocity coupling was computed with the SIMPLE scheme. For
spatial-discretization, second order upwind scheme was applied.
The PRESTO! scheme was used for pressure. Also simulations with
the body force weighted scheme were carried out. The solution
calculated with these two schemes were compared and showed
negligible differences. With the PRESTO! scheme a faster conver-
gence of the simulation was observed and therefore it was used in
the simulations. Gradients were calculated by Green-Gau cell
based methods. The convergence of the solution was determined
by constant monitors with a maximum allowed uctuation of the
temperature by 5 K at the outlet and as well on different points
inside the furnace and a maximum allowed change of the species
concentrations of 0.001 mol fraction at the outlet and different
points inside the furnace. All residuals were below 103 and the
overall heat imbalance was lower than 0.1%.
3.2. Boundary condition
For both furnaces, pure methane was used as a fuel for the
simulation. In the experiment with the IFRF-furnace they did not use
pure methane as fuel, but Yin et al. [16] showed that the inuence of
the used fuel made a negligible difference. The fuel and the oxidizer
streams were modelled as mass-ow inlets. The turbulent intensity
was set to 10% for the VO2-furnace and 20% for IFRF-furnace. The
high inlet turbulent intensity of 20% for the IFRF furnace was used
because it was also used by the researches of the IFRF [41] [44].
Additionally both furnaces have been calculated with a turbulent
intensity of 5%. The calculation showed that the inlet turbulent in-
tensity has negligible inuence on the solution. At the inlet of the
fuel and the oxidizer a turbulent velocity prole (1/7th power ve-
locity prole law) was dened via user dened function to ensure
that the ow is fully developed until it reaches the chamber. The inlet
temperature for the fuel and the oxidizer was set to 25
C for both
furnaces. The simulation for the IFRF-furnace was carried out with an
equivalence ratio of 0.9871 and the simulation of the VO2-furnace
with an equivalence ratio of 0.977. That means that both furnaces
work under slightly fuel-lean conditions. The wall temperature of
the IFRF-furnace was given by function, which can be seen in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the remaining boundary condition of the furnaces.
3.3. Combustion modelling
In combustion modelling, reaction kinetic and turbulent inter-
action is crucial. The correct selection of turbulence/chemistry
interaction affects the solution and computing time. In this study,
three different turbulence/chemistry models were tested with
different combustion mechanisms. The rst combustion model
used is the EDM (eddy dissipation model) proposed by Magnussen
and Hjertager [46]. It is widely used for simulation with air but also
for simulation with oxygen. The model provides a chemical reac-
tion rate, dominated by the large-eddy mixing time scale (mixed is
 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489
Table 1
Fuel composition and operating conditions.
Species CH4 C2H6
Natural gas composition in vol-% 86 5.40
Operating conditions
Natural gas Oxygen
Mass ow (kg/h) Temperature (K) Mass ow (kg/h)
63 298.15 224.5
burnt approach) [47]. Another version of the EDM also takes nite-
rate chemistry into account. This model calculates the Arrhenius
reaction rate and the eddy dissipation rate. The nite rate model
was not used in this investigation due to the dominating eddy
dissipation rate in the furnaces. In non-premixed combustion the
oxidizer and the fuel are slowly mixed by the turbulence in the
reaction zone where it burns rapidly due to the fact that most fuels
are fast burning. In this case it can be said that the combustion is
mixing-limited and the chemical kinetic rates can be neglected. The
biggest drawback of this model is that only two reactions can be
considered due to the different Arrhenius rates of multi-step
mechanisms [48]. For the simulations carried out with the EDM,
the following 2-step mechanism was used [49]:
CH4 1:5O2 / CO 2H2 O
CO 0:5O2 / CO2
For air-fuel condition, the restriction of the EDM for 2-step
mechanism might be sufcient. Due to the high temperature un-
der oxy-fuel condition, dissociation effects and formation of radi-
cals have to be taken into account by the chemical mechanism. To
use a multi-step mechanism, many researchers used the EDC (eddy
dissipation concept) model, which is an enhancement of the EDM.
It assumes that reaction takes place in ne scales and was
Fig. 2. 3D model of the VO2 lab-scale furnace used in CFD.
1481
C3H8 C4H10 C5H12 CO2 N2 O2
1.87 0.58 0.14 1.79 4.01 0.21
Wall temperatures (K)
Temperature (K) T(x) 1700,6 212.59x-46,669x2
298.15 (x: axial distance from the burner wall, (m))
suggested by Magnussen [50]. The disadvantage of this model is the
long calculation time for the chemistry integration.
Another opportunity is to simulate combustion with the
amelet model. In this model the thermochemical state of the uid
is described by only one parameter called mixture fraction. The
mixture fraction stands for the mass fraction of all fuel (C, H, ) and
oxidizer (O, N, ) elements in all species (H2O, CO2, CO, O, OH, ).
The advantage of this approach is that the mass balance on the
atomic level avoids source terms from the chemical reactions in the
transport equation of the mean mixture fraction. Through the
introduction of the mixture fraction the chemistry gets reduced to a
simple mixing problem [48]. In this work the SFM (steady laminar
amelet) model was used. In the SFM approach, a turbulent ame
can be represented by a number of small, one dimensional ame-
lets [51]. These amelets are generated by calculating counter ow
(1)
diffusion ames. The species mass fraction and the temperature can
be easily calculated with complex chemical kinetic and compared
with measurements in such counter diffusion ames. The amelet
(2)
is dened by the mixture fraction and the scalar dissipation rate. A
big advantage of this approach is that the calculation of the
chemistry can be pre-processed and stored in look-up tables and
only two additional transport equations for the mean mixture
Fig. 3. Position of the temperature measurement points.
1482 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489
Table 2
Boundary conditions for different furnaces in the CFD calculations.
VO2-furnace IFRF-furnace
Mass ow-rate CH4 (kg/h) 0.828 55.422
Mass ow-rate O2 (kg/h) 3.08 224.49
Convective boundary condition at outer wall
Free stream temperature (K) 298.15 e
Heat transfer coefcient (W/m2K) 30 e
Radiation
Internal emissivity 0.9 0.7
fraction and mixture fraction variance have to be solved. This
means that the mass fraction, density and temperature are only
functions of the mixture fraction and enthalpy (for non-adiabatic
conditions). In turbulent ows, only averaged values (Reynolds
and Favre) are used. Therefore a b-PDF (probability density func-
tion) is used to predict the mean values of these scalars. The PDF
can be seen as the probability that the instantaneous value is equal
to the averaged value at the same place in the ow eld. The set-
tings used for the PDF generation and amelet generation are given
in Table 3, and Table 4. For the simulation, two detailed chemical
mechanisms are used. The mechanisms skeletal25 [52] and
smooke46 [53] were tested. The applicability of these mechanisms
for oxy-fuel condition should be pointed out. Furthermore, the
limits of the SFM under oxy-fuel condition should be investigated.
3.4. Radiation model
The DO (discrete ordination) model is applied to solve the RTE
(radiative transfer equation) in all cases. The DO model discretizes
each octant of the angular space into azimuth and polar angle. For
each of these angles the RTE is solved. The number of discretization
strongly affects the calculation time. Porter et al. [54] investigated
the inuence of the number angle discretization. The investigation
showed that an azimuth and a polar discretization of 3 for each
angle and a discretization of 8 make little difference to the solution.
Furthermore, they compared the P1 model and the DO model and
concluded that the DO model is more accurate than the P1 model.
This is the reason why the DO model is used in this simulation.
Under oxy-fuel condition the atmosphere inside the furnace
consists mainly of CO2 and H2O and due to the strong absorption
bands of these gases the gas should be treated as a non-grey gas.
The big drawback of a non-grey assumption is that the computa-
tional time dramatically increases. Therefore a grey approach is
used to calculate the radiative properties. The WSGGM is widely
used for this. In this model, the radiative gas properties of the ue
gas are considered as a mixture of grey gases. The emissivity of the
gas mixture is calculated by the sum of the emissivity of all ctive
grey gases combined with a weighting factor as displayed in
equation (3). Where a;i stands for the emissivity weighting factor,
ki is the absorption coefcient of i-th ctive gas, p is the sum of all
partial pressures of all absorbing gases, s is the path length.
X
I  
a;i T 1  eki ps (3)
ji
Table 3
Settings for PDF calculation.
IFRF/VO2-furnace
Number of mean mixture fraction points 40
Number of mixture fraction variance points 40
Minimum temperature (
C) 20
Number of mean enthalpy points 41
Table 4
Settings for amelet calculation.
IFRF/VO2-furnace
Maximum number of amelets 20
Number of grid points in amelet 32
Initial scalar dissipation (1/s) 0.01
Scalar dissipation step 5
The coefcients for the WSGGM used in this simulation are from
Smith et al. [30], Kangwanpongpan et al. [36] and Yin et al. [31]. The
coefcients from Kangwanpongpan were derived for furnaces with
ue gas recycling where CO2 and H2O are present in oxidant. This is
not the case in the calculated furnaces due to the use of natural gas
as fuel and pure oxygen as oxidant. The ratio of H2O and CO2 in oxy-
fuel combustion is between 0.125 and 1 for dry and wet ue gas
recycling respectively. For oxy-fuel combustion without recycling,
the ratio of H2O and CO2 is 2. Therefore the coefcients from Yin
et al. were used for negligible H2O and CO2 concentration to
calculate the radiative properties of the gas near the burner where
the concentration of CO2 and H2O is low.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Effect of grid
Two simulations were carried out with two different meshes to
examine the grid independency of the solution for the IFRF furnace.
The detailed mechanism (skeletal25) with the SFM approach was
used for each of these simulations. The radiative properties of the
ue gas were calculated with the WSGGM from Smith et al. The
coarse mesh consists of 1 million hexahedron cells with a
maximum skewness of 0.56 and a minimal orthogonal quality of
0.81. The mesh is ne near the burner due to high velocity, species
and temperature gradients. For the ne mesh, 2.5 million hexahe-
dron cells for a quarter of the furnace were used with a maximum
skewness of 0.56 and a minimum orthogonal quality of 0.62. The
two different meshes can be seen in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. The calculated
volume fractions (dry) of CO2, H2, CO and O2 are plotted in Fig. 6 and
are confronted with measurements. Fig. 6 shows that the size of the
mesh has only a small inuence on the solution. Therefore the
mesh with 2.5 million cells is used in all simulations of the IFRF
0.8 MW furnace. The grid independency test for the VO2-furnace
can be seen in Ref. [45].
4.2. Effect of combustion modelling
Three different models were used to calculate the chemistry
turbulence interaction in the IFRF furnace. These models are the
EDM, EDC and the SFM models. For the EDM model a simple 2-
step mechanism (see equations (1) and (2)) was used. The EDC
model used a rened version of the Jones and Lindstedt 4-step
mechanism [15]. The difference between the original JL 4-step
and the rened mechanism is to use the H2 oxidation model
proposed by Marinov et al. [55]. It replaces the reversible H2 re-
action in the original JL 4-step mechanism. This rened 4-step
global mechanism was used by Yin et al. [16] and Kim et al. [56].
Two detailed mechanisms, skeletal25 and smooke46 were used
for the SFM model. Using the SFM, it is possible to reduce calcu-
lation time from 4 weeks with EDC to 4 days on 8 CPU-cores. The
temperature proles of the IFRF furnace for the different com-
bustion models are plotted in Fig. 7. It can be seen that the shape
of the ame for the EDC and the EDM model are nearly similar. The
major difference between these models is that the cold stream of
CH4 and O2 extends further into the chamber with the EDC model.
 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489 1483

Fig. 4. Coarse mesh IFRF 0.8 MW furnace.

Fig. 5. Fine mesh IFRF 0.8 MW furnace.

That means that the ignition of the CH4/O2 mixture is delayed. The
SFM shows a totally different temperature prole compared to the
EDC and the EDM. It can be seen that ignition of the CH4/O2
mixture is even more delayed compared to the EDC model. That
means that the mixing of the CH4 and the O2 stream is not good
enough or cannot be calculated by the SFM. The shape and the
temperature of the ame calculated with the SFM and the
smooke46 mechanism is considerably different to the other
models and mechanisms. The temperature calculated with the
smooke46 is in a large area that is far too cold compared to the
other simulations. The reason for the low temperature is that the
ignition with the smooke46 mechanism is even more delayed
compared to the skeletal25 mechanism and that the smooke46
mechanism is not suitable for oxy-fuel conditions [45]. To
emphasise this fact, the different combustion models and mech-
anism are compared with measurements at 0.22, 0.82 and 1.42 m
(see Fig. 1) from the burner in Fig. 8, showing that the EDM
strongly overestimates the temperature at all measured lines. This
was expected due to the limitation of the EDM to use a 2-step
mechanism, where no radical formations and dissociation can be
accounted for. The EDC model predicts the temperature near the
burner (x 0.22 m) well but overrates the temperature at x 0.82
and 1.42 m. The prediction of the SFM with the skeletal25
mechanism underestimates the temperature near the burner and
at x 0.82 m due to delayed ignition. The temperature calculated
by the SFM at x 1.42 m is overestimated but in the same range as
the EDC. The SFM with the smooke46 mechanism underestimates
the temperature at x 0.22 m in the same range as the SFM with
the skletal25 mechanism. The temperatures calculated at x 0.82
and 1.42 m are nearly 1000 K less than the measured temperature.
This indicates that ignition is delayed and that the mechanism is
not suitable for oxy-fuel combustion. It also has to be considered
that for the temperature measurements a water-cooled suction
pyrometer was used. Due to the cooling of the gas at the tip of the
pyrometer the measured gas temperature is a few hundred de-
grees lower than the true gas temperature. Therefore calibration
of the suction pyrometer was done by coherent anti-Stokes Raman
spectroscopy temperature measurements. But the authors gave no
value for the measurement uncertainty [43]. In the gures the
corrected temperatures are plotted. In Fig. 9 the species calculated
by the different combustion models and mechanisms are plotted
against measurements. It can be seen that the SFM with the
smooke46 mechanism clearly fails to predict the CO2 and the CO
concentration in the IFRF furnace, which indicates once more that
this mechanism is not suitable for oxy-fuel combustions. The EDM
also clearly fails to predict the CO concentration. The SFM with the
skeletal25 mechanism can predict the trends of the different
species in the same way as the EDC model does. The measured
values plotted are averaged values over 60 s. The gas analysers had
an accuracy of 0.5% for the species CO, CO2, O2 and H2. The sum of
all measured species was between 97 and 108% what is an indi-
cation for the good quality of the measurements [43].
1484 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489
Fig. 6. Species predicted in the near-burner region of the IFRF furnace for different meshes.
The simulation of the VO2 furnace with the SFM and the skel-
etal25 showed a different ame shape compared to the IFRF
furnace. The temperature prole of the VO2 furnace calculated by
the SFM is plotted in Fig. 10. It can be clearly seen that the ignition
is not delayed as in the simulation of the IFRF furnace. Further-
more, the simulation is confronted with measurements as shown
in Fig. 11. The maximum temperature of 1142
C was measured at
T2, which is placed above the ame. Simulation shows only a de-
viation of 5 K from the maximum measured temperature. A dif-
ference between T1 and T2 of 43 K was measured. In the
simulation the temperature difference between T1 and T2 was
calculated with 41 K. The error of the thermocouples for this
temperature range is 2.8 K. This means that the deviation between
simulation and measurements is nearly in the same order of
magnitude as the measurement uncertainty. This can be seen as a
Fig. 7. Temperature proles of the IFRF furnace for different combustion models; (a)
EDM; (b) EDC; (c) SFM skeletal25; (d) SFM smooke46.
good agreement between simulation and measurements.
Furthermore comparison shows that the computational model and
the measurements are in good agreement for all points and shows
the same temperature trends. This shows that the SFM with
skeletal25 works well for oxy-fuel combustion simulations. How-
ever, the question remains to why the SFM works for the VO2
furnace and not for the IFRF furnace. The velocity proles for the
different furnaces are plotted in Fig. 12. It can be clearly seen that
the velocity difference between the O2 stream and CH4 stream in
the VO2 furnace is far higher than in IFRF furnace. In the IFRF
furnace, the O2 and the CH4 stream have nearly the same velocity.
The fraction of the O2 velocity to the CH4 velocity is 0.21 in the VO2
furnace, whereas the velocity fraction in the IFRF furnace is 1.01.
This indicates furthermore that there is nearly no velocity differ-
ence between the O2 and CH4 stream in the IFRF furnace. Hence,
with regard to the small shear rate between these two streams the
mixing is bad and cannot be calculated by the SFM approach. The
strain rates for the two furnaces are plotted in Fig. 13. The gure
shows that the strain rate for the IFRF furnace is very high near the
burner, but the strain rate then decreases rapidly until there is
hardly any strain rate between the O2 stream and the CH4 stream.
This indicates furthermore that mixing between the two streams is
poor. In the VO2 the strain rate between the O2 stream and CH4
stream is also high at the beginning but it does not decrease as fast
as in the IFRF furnace. Therefore the mixing between the two
streams is better if the O2 inlet in the IFRF furnace is modied by
changing the diameter to get the same velocity fraction of 0.21 as
in the VO2 furnace. The calculation shows a very similar ame
shape to that in the VO2 furnace as depicted in Fig. 14. The SFM can
calculate ames with high shear rates between the O2 and CH4
streams in good accordance with measurements, but if the shear
rates are too low, the SFM fails to predict the temperature prole
and the shape of the ame.
 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489 1485

Fig. 8. Comparison of the temperature predicted by different combustion models in the IFRF furnace.

Fig. 9. Comparison of different species predicted by different combustion models in the IFRF furnace.
1486 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489
Fig. 10. Temperature prole of the VO2 calculated with the SFM and the skeletal25.
Fig. 11. Comparison between measurements and simulation of the VO2 furnace.
4.3. Effect of turbulence modelling
To evaluate the inuence of the turbulence model, further
simulations of the IFRF were conducted with three different tur-
bulence models. These turbulence models are the realizable k- (r-
k-), the standard k- (s-k-) and the RSM (Reynolds stress model).
The solution of the simulations with the SFM, the skeletal25
mechanism and the different turbulence models are plotted in
Fig. 15. It can be seen that near the burner (x 0.22 m), the tur-
bulence models only have a small inuence on the solution and the
proles are nearly similar. At x 0.82 m the s-k- and the RSM
improves the solution but the temperature is still too low. In
x 1.42 m from the burner the difference between the used
Fig. 12. Velocity prole calculated with the SFM; (a) VO2 furnace; (b) IFRF furnace.
Fig. 13. Strain rate at gases inlet for the; (a) IFRF furnace; (b) VO2 furnace.
turbulence models is negligible. The shape of the ame with the s-
k- and RSM is not considerably different from the shape calculated
with the r-k-. In Fig. 16, the temperature plot of the IFRF furnace
calculated with the RSM and s-k- is shown.
4.4. Effect of radiation modelling
The DO (discrete ordination) model was applied to solve the RTE
in all cases. The radiative properties were calculated with the
WSGGM. For the WSGGM, coefcients from three different authors
were used. These coefcients are from Smith et al. [30], Yin et al.
[31] and Kangwanpongpan et al. [36]. The coefcients from Yin
et al. and Smith et al. were derived from the EWB model with the
difference that the coefcients from Yin et al. have a broader vali-
dation range. The WSGGM from Smith et al. is valid for a H2O/CO2
ratio of 1 and 2, path lengths up to 10 m and for temperatures
between 600 and 2400 K. In comparison to that, the WSGGM from
Yin et al. is valid for H2O/CO2 ratios between 0.125 and 4 and path
lengths up to 60 m. Kangwanpongpan et al. derived the coefcients
for the WSGGM from the highly accurate LBL (HITEMP2010) model.
This WSGGM is valid for H2O/CO2 ratios between 0.125 and 4 and a
maximum path length of 60 m. Unfortunately Kangwanpongpan
et al. did not derive coefcients for negligible H2O and CO2 con-
centrations arising near the burner. Therefore, the coefcients from
Yin et al. were used. The three WSGGMs are implemented in the
CFD code via UDF (user dened functions). The calculated tem-
perature with the SFM, the skeletal25 and the different WSGGM are
plotted in Fig. 17. The gure clearly indicates that the different
WSGGM does not make any difference at all. The reason is that the
beam length (about 0.8 m) in the IFRF furnace is too small to make a
big difference. The inuence of the WSGGM is higher in furnaces
with a larger beam length. Yin et al. [16] simulated a 609 MW utility
boiler with a beam length of 11 m. They simulated the boiler with
WSGGM coefcients from Smith et al. and the coefcient from Yin
et al. [31]. The simulation showed that the calculated absorption
coefcient between these two WSGGMs differs by about 120%
resulting in a temperature difference of 200 K.
Fig. 14. Temperature prole of the IFRF furnace for a velocity ratio of 0.21 between the
O2 and CH4 stream.
 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489
Fig. 15. Temperature predicted in the IFRF furnace by the SFM with skeletal25 and different turbulence models.
5. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to simulate two furnaces with detailed
chemical kinetics and with little computational effort under oxy-
fuel conditions. Therefore the steady amelet approach with the
skeletal25 and the smooke46 mechanism was used to simulate the
furnaces. Furthermore, simulations with the EDC and the EDM
were conducted. The EDM used a simple 2-step mechanism which
highly overestimated the temperature in the furnace due to
neglecting dissociation effects and the radical formations, but
which calculates the ame shape correctly. In the simulation with
the EDC model, a 4-step mechanism was used which showed good
results compared to the measurements. The big drawback of the
EDC is the long calculation time due to the computationally
demanding chemistry integration. Therefore it is difcult to simu-
late big furnaces with the EDC with reasonable accuracy in an
appropriate amount of time. Using the SFM reduced the calculation
Fig. 16. Temperature proles of the IFRF furnace calculated by the SFM with (a) RSM
and (b) skeletal.
1487
time from 4 weeks to 4 days on 8 CPU-cores and is therefore very
interesting for simulations of large furnaces. It was shown that the
SFM with the skeletal25 is in good accordance with the measure-
ments if the shear rate between the O2 stream and CH4 is high.
Deviation between simulation and measurements was at a
maximum of 5 K, which is a very good accordance for these high
temperatures. For a small velocity difference between the O2 and
the CH4 streams, which results in a small shear rate, the SFM fails
neither to predict the ame shape correctly nor to predict the
temperature. Simulations with the SFM and the smooke46 mech-
anism showed that the temperature in the furnace is highly
Fig. 17. Temperature prole in the IFRF furnace calculated with the SFM and different
WSGGM.
1488 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489
underestimated and therefore the smooke46 mechanism is not
applicable for oxy-fuel conditions. The inuence of the turbulence
models on the solution with small shear rates and the SFM was
investigated as well. The standard k-, realizable k- and the Rey-
nolds stress model were used to evaluate the inuence of turbu-
lence. The impact of the different turbulence models on the
solution is negligible and the turbulence models cannot improve
the solution calculated with the SFM for small shear rates.
Furthermore, the inuence of the radiative properties on the so-
lution was investigated by applying different WSGGMs from
different authors. The simulations with the different WSGGMs
showed that they have a negligible impact on the solution for such
small furnaces due to the small beam length, and a CO2/H2O frac-
tion of 2 due to the use of natural gas as fuel. These results show
that the SFM with the skeletal25 mechanism is applicable for oxy-
fuel condition with high shear rates and fails to predict the ame
shape for small shear rates correctly; hence this problem should be
further investigated.
Acknowledgements
This work was nancially supported by the Austrian Research
Promotion Agency (FFG), Determination of the radiative heat ux
under oxy-fuel and oxygen enrichment conditions for natural gas-
red furnaces (project 842383, eCall 3861952).
References
[1] Davison J. Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of
CO2. Energy Jul. 2007;32(7):1163e76.
[2] Manickam B, Dinkelacker F, Lobe T, Tertychnyy M. Enriched oxygen com-
bustion simulation for rotary kiln application. In: presented at the 4th Euro-
pean combustion meeting; 2009. Vienna.
[3] Pak PS, Lee YD, Ahn KY. Characteristics and economic evaluation of a power
plant applying oxy-fuel combustion to increase power output and decrease
CO2 emission. Energy Aug. 2010;35(8):3230e8.
[4] Toftegaard MB, Brix J, Jensen PA, Glarborg P, Jensen AD. Oxy-fuel combustion
of solid fuels. Prog Energy Combust Sci Oct. 2010;36(5):581e625.
[5] Hammond GP, Akwe SSO, Williams S. Techno-economic appraisal of fossil-
fuelled power generation systems with carbon dioxide capture and storage.
Energy Feb. 2011;36(2):975e84.
[6] Scheffknecht G, Al-Makhadmeh L, Schnell U, Maier J. Oxy-fuel coal
combustiondA review of the current state-of-the-art. Int J Greenh Gas Con-
trol Jul. 2011;5:S16e35.
[7] Oliveira FAD, Carvalho JA, Sobrinho PM, de Castro A. Analysis of oxy-fuel
combustion as an alternative to combustion with air in metal reheating fur-
naces. Energy Dec. 2014;78:290e7.
[8] Be
lohradsk P, Skryja P, Huda k I. Experimental study on the inuence of
oxygen content in the combustion air on the combustion characteristics.
Energy Oct. 2014;75:116e26.
[9] Prieler R, Demuth M, Spoljaric D, Hochenauer C. Numerical investigation of
the steady amelet approach under different combustion environments. Fuel
Jan. 2015;140:731e43.
[10] Kutne P, Kapadia BK, Meier W, Aigner M. Experimental analysis of the com-
bustion behaviour of oxyfuel ames in a gas turbine model combustor. Proc
Combust Inst Jan. 2011;33(2):3383e90.
[11] Andersson K, Johansson R, Johnsson F, Leckner B. Radiation intensity of
propane-red oxy-fuel ames: implications for soot formation. Energy Fuels
May 2008;22(3):1535e41.
[12] Becher V, Clausen S, Fateev A, Spliethoff H. Validation of spectral gas radiation
models under oxyfuel conditions. Part A: gas cell experiments. Int J Greenh
Gas Control Jul. 2011;5:S76e99.
[13] Johansson R, Andersson K, Leckner B, Thunman H. Models for gaseous radi-
ative heat transfer applied to oxy-fuel conditions in boilers. Int J Heat Mass
Transf Jan. 2010;53(1e3):220e30.
[14] Westbrook C, Dryer F. Simplied reaction mechanisms for the oxidation of
hydrocarbon fuels in ames. Combust Sci Technol Jul. 1981;27(1e2):31e43.
[15] Jones W, Lindstedt R. Global reaction schemes for hydrocarbon combustion.
Combust Flame Sep. 1988;73(3):233e49.
[16] Yin C, Rosendahl LA, Kr SK. Chemistry and radiation in oxy-fuel combustion:
a computational uid dynamics modeling study. Fuel Jul. 2011;90(7):
2519e29.
[17] Frassoldati A, Cuoci A, Faravelli T, Ranzi E, Candusso C, Tolazzi D. Simplied
kinetic schemes for oxy-fuel combustion. In: Proceeding of S4FE2009-1st
internationl conference on sustainable fossil fuels for further energy; 2009.
Rome.
[18] Glarborg P, Bentzen LLB. Chemical effects of a high CO 2 concentration in oxy-
fuel combustion of methane. Energy Fuels Jan. 2008;22(1):291e6.
[19] Andersen J, Rasmussen CL, Giselsson T, Glarborg P. Global combustion
mechanisms for use in CFD modeling under oxy-fuel conditions. Energy Fuels
Mar. 2009;23(3):1379e89.
[20] Modest MF. The treatment of nongray properties in radiative heat transfer:
from past to present. J Heat Transf 2013;135(6):061801.
[21] Stefanidis GD, Merci B, Heynderickx GJ, Marin GB. Gray/nongray gas radiation
modeling in steam cracker CFD calculations. AIChE J Jul. 2007;53(7):1658e69.
[22] Hottel H, Sarom A. Radiative transfer. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill; 1967.
[23] Rothman LS, Gordon IE, Barber RJ, Dothe H, Gamache RR, Goldman A, et al.
HITEMP, the high-temperature molecular spectroscopic database. J Quant
Spectrosc Radiat Transf Oct. 2010;111(15):2139e50.
[24] Rothman L, Wattson R, Gamache R, Schroeder J, McCann A. HITRAN, HAWKS
and HITEMP: high-temperature molecular database: SPIE. In: Dainty JC, edi-
tor. Atmospheric propagation and remote sensing IV, SPIE; 1995.
[25] Rothman LS, Gordon IE, Barbe A, Benner DC, Bernath PF, Birk M, et al. The
HITRAN 2008 molecular spectroscopic database. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat
Transf 2009;110(9):533e72.
[26] Rothman LS, Jacquemart D, Barbe A, Chris Benner D, Birk M, Brown LR, et al.
The HITRAN 2004 molecular spectroscopic database. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat
Transf Dec. 2005;96(2):139e204.
[27] Soufani A, Taine J. High temperature gas radiative property parameters of
statistical narrow-band model for H2O, CO2 and CO, and correlated-K model
for H2O and CO2. Int J Heat Mass Transf 1997;40(4):987e91.
[28] Grosshandler W. RADCAL: a narrow-band model for radiation calculations in a
combustion environment. Gaitherburg: National Institute of Standards and
Technology; 1993.
[29] Edwards D. Molecular gas band radiation. Adv Heat Transf 1976;12:115e93.
[30] Smith J, Shen Z, Friedman J. Evaluation of coefficients for the weighted sum of
gray gases model. J Heat Transf Nov. 1982;104:602e8.
[31] Yin C, Johansen LCR, Rosendahl LA, Kr SK. New weighted sum of gray gases
model applicable to computational uid dynamics (CFD) modeling of oxy-
fuel combustion: derivation, validation, and implementation. Energy Fuels
Dec. 2010;24(12):6275e82.
[32] Becher V, Goanta A, Spliethoff H. Validation of spectral gas radiation models
under oxyfuel conditions e part C: validation of simplied models. Int J
Greenh Gas Control Nov. 2012;11:34e51.
[33] Johansson R, Leckner B, Andersson K, Johnsson F. Account for variations in the
H2O to CO2 molar ratio when modelling gaseous radiative heat transfer with
the weighted-sum-of-grey-gases model. Combust Flame May 2011;158(5):
893e901.
[34] Bordbar MH, We cel G, Hyppa nen T. A line by line based weighted sum of gray
gases model for inhomogeneous CO2eH2O mixture in oxy-red combustion.
Combust Flame Sep. 2014;161(9):2435e45.
[35] Rehfeldt S, Kuhr C, Ehmann M, Bergins C. Modeling of radiative properties of
an oxyfuel atmosphere with a weighted sum of gray gases for variable carbon
dioxide and water vapor concentrations. Energy Procedia Jan. 2011;4:980e7.
[36] Kangwanpongpan T, Frana FHR, Corre ^a da Silva R, Schneider PS, Krautz HJ.
New correlations for the weighted-sum-of-gray-gases model in oxy-fuel
conditions based on HITEMP 2010 database. Int J Heat Mass Transf Dec.
2012;55(25e26):7419e33.
[37] Krishnamoorthy G. A new weighted-sum-of-gray-gases model for CO2eH2O
gas mixtures. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf Nov. 2010;37(9):1182e6.
[38] Galletti C, Coraggio G, Tognotti L. Numerical investigation of oxy-natural-gas
combustion in a semi-industrial furnace: validation of CFD sub-models. Fuel
Jul. 2013;109:445e60.
[39] Coppalle A, Vervisch P. The total emissivities of high-temperature ames.
Combust Flame Jan. 1983;49(1e3):101e8.
[40] Lallemant N, Breussin F, Weber R, Ekman T, Dugue  J, Samaniego J, et al. Flame
structure, heat transfer and pollutant emission characteristics of oxy-natural
gas ames in the 0.7-1 MW thermal input range. J Inst Energy
2000;73(496):169e82.
[41] Breussin F, Lallemant N, Weber R. Computing of oxy-natural gas ames using
both a global combustion scheme and a chemical equilibrium procedure.
Combust Sci Technol 2000;160(1):369e97.
[42] Lallemant NJ, Dugue , Weber R. Measurment techniques for studying oxy-
natural gas ames. J Inst Energy 2003;76(507):38e53.
[43] Lallemant N, Dugue  J, Weber R. Analysis of the experimental data collected
during OXYFLAM-1 and OXYFLAM-2 experiments. Ijmuiden, IFRF Doc No F 85/
y/4. 1997.
[44] Bollettini U, Breussin F, Lallemant N, Weber R. Mathematical modeling of oxy-
natural gas ames. Ijmuiden, IFRF Doc No F 85/y/6. 1997.
[45] Prieler R, Demuth M, Spoljaric D, Hochenauer C. Evaluation of a steady
amelet approach for use in oxy-fuel combustion. Fuel Feb. 2014;118:55e68.
[46] Magnussen B, Hjertager B. On mathematical modeling of turbulent combus-
tion with special emphasis on soot formation and combustion. In: 16th
Symposium (Int) on combustion. The Combust Inst; 1976.
[47] Spalding D. Mixing and chemical reaction in steady conned turbulent ames.
In: 13th Symposium (Int) on combustion. The Combust Inst.; 1970.
[48] ANSYS uent theory guid 13.0. ANSYS Inc.; 2010.
[49] Dryer F, Glassman I. High-temperature oxidation of CO and CH4. In: 14th
Symposium (Int) on combustion. The Combustion Inst.; 1972.
 B. Mayr et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1478e1489
[50] Magnussen B. On mathematical modeling of turbulent combustion with
special emphasis on soot formation and combustion. In: 19th AIAA meeting;
1981. St. Louis, USA.
[51] Peters N. Laminar diffusion amelet models in non-premixed turbulent
combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1984;10(3):319e39.
[52] Peeters T. Numerical modeling of turbulence natural-gas diffusion ames.
Delft: Delft Technical University; 1995 [PhD thesis].
[53] Smooke M, Puri I, Seshadri K. A comparison between numerical calculations
and experimental measurements of the structure of a counterow diffusion
ame burning diluted methane in diluted air. In: 21 st Symposium (Int) on
Combustion. The Combust Inst.; 1986. p. 1783e92.
View publication stats
1489
[54] Porter R, Liu F, Pourkashanian M, Williams A, Smith D. Evaluation of solution
methods for radiative heat transfer in gaseous oxy-fuel combustion envi-
ronments. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transf Sep. 2010;111(14):2084e94.
[55] Marinov N, Westbrook C, Pitz W. Detailed and global chemical kinetics model
for hydrogen. In: Chan SH, editor. Transport phenomena in combustion; 1996.
Washington, DC.
[56] Kim J, Schnell U, Scheffknecht G. Comparison of different global reaction
mechanisms for mild combustion of natural gas. Combust Sci Technol
2008;180(4):565e92.