Unstructured Mesh Optimization For Gasturbine - Burner

COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
UNSTRUCTURED MESH OPTIMIZATION FOR

TH
THE SIEMENS 4 GENERATION DLE BURNER
Dejan Koren
Master’s thesis
School of Engineering Sciences, Department of mechanics,

KTH, Royal Institute of Technology
Master’s thesis
Computational Fluid Dynamics unstructured mesh

optimization for the Siemens 4rd generation DLE
burner
Dejan Koren
Industrial Supervisors: Dr. Daniel Lörstad

Dr. Darioush Gohari Barhaghi
Siemens Turbomachinery AB, Finspång, Sweden
Academic Supervisor: Dr. Bernhard Semlitsch

Examiner: Dr. Mihai Mihaescu
Finspång, October 2015

This work is dedicated to dr. Marta Klanjšek Gunde
iii
ABSTRACT
Every computational fluid dynamics engineer deals with a never ending story – limited
computer resources. In computational fluid dynamics there is practically never enough
computer power. Limited computer resources lead to long calculation times which result in
high costs and one of the main reasons is that large quantity of elements are needed in a
computational mesh in order to obtain accurate and reliable results.
Although there exist established meshing approaches for the Siemens 4th generation DLE
burner, mesh dependency has not been fully evaluated yet. The main goal of this work is
therefore to better optimize accuracy versus cell count for this particular burner intended for
simulation of air/gas mixing where eddy-viscosity based turbulence models are employed.
Ansys Fluent solver was used for all simulations in this work. For time effectivisation
purposes a 30° sector model of the burner was created and validated for the mesh
convergence study. No steady state solutions were found for this case therefore time
dependent simulations with time statistics sampling were employed. The mesh convergence
study has shown that a coarse computational mesh in air casing of the burner does not affect
flow conditions downstream where air/gas mixing process is taking place and that a major
part of the combustion chamber is highly mesh independent. A large reduction of cell count in
those two parts is therefore allowed. On the other hand the RPL (Rich Pilot Lean) and the
pilot burner turned out to be highly mesh density dependent. The RPL and the Pilot burner
need to have significantly more refined mesh as it has been used so far with the established
meshing approaches. The mesh optimization has finally shown that at least as accurate results
of air/gas mixing results may be obtained with 3x smaller cell count. Furthermore it has been
shown that significantly more accurate results may be obtained with 60% smaller cell count as
with the established meshing approaches.
A short mesh study of the Siemens 3rd generation DLE burner in ignition stage of operation
was also performed in this work. This brief study has shown that the established meshing
approach for air/gas mixing purposes is sufficient for use with Ansys Fluent solver while
certain differences were discovered when comparing the results obtained with Ansys Fluent
against those obtained with Ansys CFX solver. Differences between Fluent and CFX solver
were briefly discussed in this work as identical simulation set up in both solvers produced
slightly different results. Furthermore the obtained results suggest that Fluent solver is less
mesh dependent as CFX solver for this particular case.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was carried out as the final part of the Master’s program in Engineering
Mechanics at KTH, Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Since everything started
there I would like to thank this great institution with dr. Gunnar Tibert as, at that time, the
Engineering Mechanics program director for giving me the honor of exploring a challenging
but very interesting field of Fluid mechanics at the Department of Mechanics.
The project was carried out exclusively at Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB in
Finspång therefore I would like to thank the Combustion group with Anders Häggmark as
its manager for giving me the honor of performing my master thesis at their division.
I would like to express special gratitude to my first supervisor at Siemens, dr. Daniel
Lörstad, whose expertise, understanding, patient guidance and all time positive energy
added considerably to my master thesis project experience. I appreciate his vast knowledge
and experience in Computational Fluid Dynamics and besides that also his strong pedagogic
skills.
Furthermore I would like to thank my second supervisor dr. Darioush Gohari Barhaghi for
helping me with his kind guidance. I would also like to thank Daniel Moëll and Anders
Ljung for providing me with technical help regarding setting up simulations and meshing
procedures.
I would like to thank Charlotte Eklöf for being a great project manager in the group.
I wish to acknowledge also my master thesis colleague Johan Sjölander for a great project
collaboration and for being a great residence company during my stay in Finspång.
A very special thank goes to my girlfriend Polona Gunde for her love and endless support
especially during critical phases of my studies and this thesis work.
My gratitude goes out as well to dr. Marta Klanjšek Gunde and dr. Jasmina Kožar Logar for
giving me a great deal of motivation boost to pursue a Master’s Degree in this challenging
branch of classical mechanics.
I would also like to thank my supervisor dr. Bernhard Semlitch and examiner dr. Mihai
Mihaescu at KTH for helping me with the final shaping of this work.
Lastly I wish to thank my family for supporting me in my desire to broaden my views and
horizons abroad through my studies and this work.
v
CONTENTS
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................v
Contents ............................................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... ix
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 SIEMENS AND GAS TURBINES ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3.1 A brief history of Siemens establishment ........................................................................................... 2
Gas turbines at Siemens ..................................................................................................................................... 2
From STAL to Siemens in Finspång, Sweden ...................................................................................................... 2
1.4 GAS TURBINES ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.4.1 Combustion chambers ....................................................................................................................... 6
Multiple Combustion Chamber .......................................................................................................................... 7
Can‐annular Combustion Chamber .................................................................................................................... 7
Annular Combustion Chamber ........................................................................................................................... 8
1.5 THE DRY LOW EMISSIONS COMBUSTORS ............................................................................................................. 9
1.5.1 The Siemens SGT‐800 and 3rd generation DLE burner ...................................................................... 10
1.5.2 The Siemens SGT‐750 and 4th generation DLE burner ...................................................................... 11
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 13
2.1 GOVERNING EQUATIONS IN FLUID MECHANICS ................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1 Mass Conversation Equation ........................................................................................................... 13
2.1.2 Momentum Conservation Equation ................................................................................................. 13
2.1.3 Conservation of energy .................................................................................................................... 14
2.1.4 Equation of state .............................................................................................................................. 14
2.2 TURBULENCE ............................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3 TURBULENCE MODELLING ............................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.1 Raynolds Averaged Navier‐Stokes equations .................................................................................. 15
2.3.1.1 Eddy viscosity models ................................................................................................................................ 16
Algebraic models or zero equation models ...................................................................................................... 17
One equation models ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Two equation models....................................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.1.1.1 The standard K‐ε eddy viscosity model............................................................................................. 17
2.3.1.1.2 The K‐ω eddy viscosity model .......................................................................................................... 18
2.3.1.1.3 The SST K‐ω model ........................................................................................................................... 18
The SST turbulence model in Ansys CFX and Fluent ......................................................................................... 19
Ansys CFX ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Ansys Fluent ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
2.3.2 Reynolds stress models (RSM) ......................................................................................................... 21
2.3.3 Large Eddy Simulation (LES) ............................................................................................................. 21
2.4 SPECIES TRANSPORT ...................................................................................................................................... 21
2.4.1 Mass diffusion in turbulent flows ..................................................................................................... 21
2.4.2 Species transport in the energy equation ........................................................................................ 22
2.4.3 Equivalence ratio ............................................................................................................................. 22
2.5 NUMERICAL METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 22
2.5.1 Discretization ................................................................................................................................... 22
2.5.1.1 Cell‐centered and vertex‐centered Finite Volume Methods ..................................................................... 23
Basic differences .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Flux integration ................................................................................................................................................ 25
testing of cell‐centered and vertex‐centered scheme ..................................................................................... 25
2.5.1.2 Spatial discretization ................................................................................................................................. 26
Ansys CFX ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Ansys Fluent ..................................................................................................................................................... 26
2.5.1.3 Gradient evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 27
2.5.2 Temporal discretization ................................................................................................................... 27
vi
2.5.3 Continuity and momentum equation coupling ................................................................................ 27
2.5.4 Calculation procedures at periodic boundaries................................................................................ 29
3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 30
3.1 GEOMETRY AND MESH CREATION ..................................................................................................................... 30
3.2 MODELS AND SOLUTION METHODS ................................................................................................................... 31
3.2.1 Monitoring convergence progress ................................................................................................... 31
3.2.1.1 Steady state runs ....................................................................................................................................... 31
3.2.1.2 Transient runs with transient statistics ..................................................................................................... 32
3.3 COMPUTATIONAL MESH OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................................................. 33
3.4 REPRESENTATION OF RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 34
Geometrical features ....................................................................................................................................... 34
Cell sizes ........................................................................................................................................................... 34
Velocity values ................................................................................................................................................. 34
Simulation Time ............................................................................................................................................... 34
Mass flow ......................................................................................................................................................... 34
4 A SHORT STUDY OF THE 3RD GENERATION DLE BURNER .......................................................................... 35
4.1 GEOMETRICAL MODEL ................................................................................................................................... 35
4.2 COMPUTATIONAL MESH ................................................................................................................................. 35
4.3 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND SOLUTION METHODS .............................................................................................. 36
4.4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................................................... 39
4.5 CONCLUSION REMARKS FOR THE SHORT 3RD GENERATION DLE BURNER STUDY .......................................................... 44
5 THE 4TH GENERATION DLE BURNER COMPUTATIONAL MESH OPTIMIZATION .......................................... 45
5.1 GEOMETRICAL MODEL ................................................................................................................................... 45
5.2 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND TIME STEP SIZE ...................................................................................................... 47
5.3 THE REFERENCE MESH .................................................................................................................................... 48
5.4 VALIDATION OF THE 30° SECTOR MODEL ........................................................................................................... 49
5.4.1 Monitor points data ‐ 30° versus 90° sector model .......................................................................... 49
5.4.2 Results – comparison between 30° and 90° sector model ............................................................... 51
5.5 THE MESH OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................................................................... 54
5.5.1 “The three meshes” .......................................................................................................................... 54
Additional meshes ............................................................................................................................................ 55
5.5.2 Additional monitor points ................................................................................................................ 55
5.5.3 The mesh study ................................................................................................................................ 57
5.5.3.1 Comparison of velocity and equivalence ratio distribution ....................................................................... 58
5.5.3.2 Quantitative assessment of the meshes along evaluation lines ................................................................ 59
5.5.4 The optimized mesh – OPT1.4M ...................................................................................................... 61
5.5.5 Verification of the optimized mesh .................................................................................................. 62
5.5.5.1 The monitor points .................................................................................................................................... 62
5.5.5.2 Assessment of the three meshes including the optimized mesh on interfaces downstream specific
passages of the burner .......................................................................................................................................... 63
5.5.5.3 Comparison of time averaged velocity and equivalence ratio distribution ............................................... 65
5.5.5.4 Quantitative assessment of the optimized mesh along evaluation lines .................................................. 66
5.5.5.5 The pilot tip ............................................................................................................................................... 69
5.5.6 Refining the pilot mesh –OPT1.8M .................................................................................................. 69
5.5.7 Conclusion remarks for the 4th generation DLE burner mesh optimization ..................................... 71
6 DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ............................................................................. 72
The short 3rd generation DLE burner study ...................................................................................................... 72
The 4th generation DLE burner mesh optimization .......................................................................................... 73
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 75
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 77
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The portfolio of Siemens gas turbines [34] ........................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Two‐shaft gas turbine [6] ...................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Brayton cycle pressure‐volume diagram for a unit mass of working fluid [6] ...................................... 4
Figure 4: Examples of gas turbine configurations: (1) turbojet, (2) turboprop, (3) turboshaft, (4) high‐bypass
turbofan, (5) low‐bypass turbofan with afterburner [8] ............................................................................ 5
Figure 5: Two‐shaft gas turbine Siemens SGT‐700 [9] ......................................................................................... 5
Figure 6: An early combustion chamber [12] ....................................................................................................... 6
Figure 7: Flame stabilizing and general airflow pattern [12]................................................................................ 6
Figure 8: Multiple combustion chambers [12] ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 9: Tubo‐annular combustion chamber [12] .............................................................................................. 8
Figure 10: Annular combustion chamber [12] ..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 11: A schematic comparison of a typical DLE combustor and a conventional combustor ........................ 9
Figure 12: The SGT‐800 [35] ............................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 13: The Siemens 3rd generation DLE burner [2] ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 14: The SGT‐750 [37] ............................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 15: The 4th generation DLE burner [38] ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 16: Illustration of cell‐centered (left) and vertex‐centered (right) type control volume constructions
[23] ............................................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 17: Dual median grid construction [24] ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 18: Median dual control volume constructed at sharp edge corner [22] ............................................... 24
Figure 19: Solution reconstruction for vertex‐centered and cell‐centered formulation in 2D unstructured mesh
[22] ............................................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 20: Flowchart illustrating Fluent solver algorithms [25] ......................................................................... 28
Figure 21: Cutting the geometry through the air casings damp holes ............................................................... 30
Figure 22: Normalized velocity in two different monitor points ........................................................................ 32
Figure 23: Splitting a tetrahedron [30] ............................................................................................................... 33
Figure 24: Geometrical model of the 3rd generation DLE burner computational domain ................................ 35
Figure 25: Comparison of the original and splitted surface computational mesh ............................................. 36
Figure 26: Monitor points locations for the 3rd generation DLE burner ............................................................. 37
Figure 27: Monitoring velocity in the Point 1, 3 and 5 and monitoring methane mass fraction in Point 1 ....... 37
Figure 28: Comparison of the time averaged velocity field results between the two meshes on the Plane 1 .. 39
Figure 29: The planes on which the evaluation lines can be seen ..................................................................... 39
Figure 30: Comparison of the time averaged velocity field results between the two meshes .......................... 40
Figure 31: Comparison of the predicted velocity field between Fluent and CFX ............................................... 40
Figure 32: Comparison of the predicted turbulence kinetic energy distribution between Fluent and CFX ....... 41
Figure 33: Time averaged equivalence ratio distribution for all four cases ....................................................... 42
Figure 34: Time averaged velocity distribution along the lines for all cases ...................................................... 43
Figure 36: The geometric model of the 90° sector of the burner ...................................................................... 46
Figure 37: The geometric model of the 30° sector of the burner ...................................................................... 47
Figure 38: Boundary conditions ......................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 39: The reference computational mesh for the 30° sector model (SIT4.2M). The inflation layer is
marked with the red line. ......................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 40: Positions of the monitor points used for validating the 30° sector model (data obtained from the
points shaded with red color can be seen in the Figure 41) ..................................................................... 49
Figure 41: Monitoring velocity and methane mass fraction in the chosen points ............................................. 50
viii
Figure 42: Positions of the evaluation lines for all cases .................................................................................... 51
Figure 43: Comparison of the time averaged velocity field between the 30° and 90° sector model ................ 51
Figure 44: Comparison of the time averaged equivalence ratio field between the 30° and 90° sector model . 52
Figure 45: Comparison of the time averaged velocity and equivalence ratio between the models along the
lines which are illustrated in the combustor cross section view .............................................................. 53
Figure 46: The original generated mesh with 0.55 million cells – 0.55M mesh ................................................. 54
Figure 47: Positions of the new monitor points ................................................................................................. 56
Figure 48: Monitored velocity and methane mass fraction in “the three meshes” in the points shown in the
cross section view of the combustor and additionally also remaining two meshes in the Point 16 (the
My1.9M and the SIT4.2M mesh) .............................................................................................................. 57
Figure 49: Comparison of time averaged velocity field in the whole domain and instantaneous axial velocity
field in the RPL burner obtained with the four meshes ........................................................................... 58
Figure 50: Comparison of time averaged equivalence ratio field in the whole domain obtained with the four
meshes ...................................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 51: Velocity and equivalence ratio distribution along the lines obtained from different meshes .......... 60
Figure 53: Monitored velocity and methane mass fraction in the same chosen points as shown in the Figure
48 but with included monitored data obtained from the optimized mesh (OPT1.4M) ........................... 62
Figure 54: Positions of the interfaces at which the data in the Table 4 is extracted (shaded with red color). .. 63
Figure 56: Comparison of the time averaged velocity field in the whole domain and instantaneous axial
velocity field in the RPL burner obtained with the optimized mesh (OPT1.4M), the reference mesh
(SIT4.2M) and the fine mesh (35M) .......................................................................................................... 65
Figure 58: Velocity and equivalence ratio distribution along the lines obtained from different meshes with
added results obtained from the optimized mesh ................................................................................... 67
Figure 59: Velocity and equivalence ratio distribution along the line marked in the bottom picture and
corresponding scatter diagram of node values on the plane the line is lying on. The scatter diagram of
two‐dimensional data recreates the lines almost exactly and thereby confirms that there is nearly no
variation of velocity and equivalence ratio on this plane in the tangential direction. ............................. 68
Figure 60: Time averaged velocity and equivalence ratio distribution at the pilot tip ...................................... 69
Figure 61: The region in which the grid cells are adapted (splitted) .................................................................. 69
Figure 62: Equivalence ratio distribution directly downstream the pilot exit obtained with the OPT1.8M mesh
and the 35M mesh .................................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 63: Equivalence ratio distribution discrepancy along Line 1 corrected with the OPT1.8M mesh ........... 70
Figure 64: Predicted time averaged equivalence ratio distribution at the pilot tip obtained with the OPT1.8M
and the 35M mesh .................................................................................................................................... 71

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Model coefficients values [16] ............................................................................................................. 20
Table 2: Boundary conditions for all runs ......................................................................................................... 48
Table 3: The main meshes for the mesh study and normalized physical simulation time (= number of flow‐
throughs) of the time dependent runs with the corresponding mesh. .................................................... 55
Table 4: Comparison of time and area averaged normalized velocity, instantaneous mass flow, time and
area averaged equivalence ratio and mass flow averaged equivalence ratio on the crucial interfaces
between specific passages in the domain. The values are compared against the 35M mesh. The
differences are max 2% except in the cells shaded with green or red color. ........................................... 63
ix
NOMENCLATURE
specific heat capacity at constant volume / ∙
internal energy per unit volume /
body force per unit mass vector /
enthalpy per unit volume /
length scale
mass flow /
normalized mass flow
normal vector
pressure
fluctuation part of pressure /
heat flux vector /
vector pointing from vertex j to vertex j m
time
flow-through time
velocity component in x direction /
, velocity vector /
fluctuation part of velocity vector /
spatial coordinate
non-dimensional wall distance
turbulent model constant
arbitrary spatial discretization
turbulent diffusivity /
total energy per unit volume /
convective flux terms
viscous flux terms
diffusion flux of species /
kinetic energy per unit mass /
length
mean pressure
kinetic energy production term /
external heat source per unit volume /
specific gas constant / ∙
surface area
turbulent Schmidt number
mean flow strain rate tensor
user defined source term for turbulence kinetic energy
user defined source term for turbulent frequency
temperature °
conservative variables terms
mean velocity vector /
left state for upwind discretization
right state for upwind discretization
velocity scale /
volume
mass fraction of species
x
Greek letters
smoothing constant for exponential moving average
nonlinear blending function for High resolution scheme in CFX
Cronecker delta function
turbulence kinetic energy dissipation rate /
length scale
dynamic viscosity / ∙
(dynamic) turbulent viscosity / ∙
kinematic viscosity /
(kinematic) turbulent viscosity /
invariant of the mean flow strain rate tensor
viscous stress tensor
density /
̅ average density /
arbitrary quantity
general turbulent model coefficient
equivalence ratio –
limiter function at vertex j
turbulence frequency

xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
DBCS Density Based Coupled Solver
DLE Dry Low Emissions
EMA Exponential Moving Average
HRIC High Resolution Interface Capturing
IP Integration Point
LES Large Eddy Simulation
MMA Modified Moving Average
MUSCL Monotone Upstream-Centered Schemes for Conservation Laws
PBCS Pressure Based Coupled Solver
QUICK Quadratic Upstream Interpolation for Convective Kinematics
RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Equation
RPL Rich Pilot Lean
RSM Reynolds Stress Model
SGT Siemens Gas Turbine
SIMPLE Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equations
SIT Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery
SST Shear Stress Transport
STAL Svenska Turbinfabriks Aktiebolaget Ljungström
WLE Wet Low Emissions
xii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Design and operation of today’s modern gas turbines and their combustion systems face the
need to combine high efficiency with low emissions, good flame stability and at the same
time to reduce development and production costs. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
implemented with different combustion models has become a powerful tool to address this
issue. Combustion modelling using CFD has certainly reduced costs of developing a
combustion chamber of a gas turbine. Although available computer power is continuously on
the rise so are also the turbulence models and combustion models more and more advanced.
Consequently our demand for computer resources is also constantly on the rise. In fact in the
case of Computational Fluid Dynamics there is never enough computer power. Every CFD
engineer eventually faces the fact that there is always a limited computer power available and
if a commercial CFD code is used there is also a limited number of costly parallel licences
available.
There is always a need to make a consensus. How detailed has to be the physical model?
Which part of the combustor is a point of interest? Computer resources are often associated
with the choice of turbulence model. Which level of details is needed when resolving the
turbulence? More detailed models always need considerably more computer resources but
detailed models are not always of engineering interest. One solution to reduce demanding
computer power is to optimally choose the level of details and the other important aspect in
Computational Fluid Dynamics is also to choose an optimum computational mesh. The
resolution of a computational mesh greatly affects computer power demands. Higher mesh
resolution in most cases contribute to better results but there is, however, often some room to
reduce mesh resolution in order to save some solution time and still obtain acceptable results.
1.2 Objective
This thesis work deals mainly with a computational mesh study for the combustor of the new
Siemens gas turbine SGT-750. One of the most important contributions to achieve desired
quality of combustion is effective mixing of fuel and oxidant. As an efficient combustion
process always starts with efficient mixing of reactants the mesh study is conducted on the
basis of merely fuel and oxidant mixing. There already exists an established meshing
approach for the new 4th generation DLE burner but due to highly complex geometry
relatively high amount of grid cells are needed. The primary objective of this thesis is
consequently to answer to the question if it is possible to reduce the number of grid cells for
the burner and still obtain acceptable results and thereby reduce solution times or with other
words – solution costs. A side objective in this work was also to present the main differences
between commercial CFD codes Ansys CFX and Ansys Fluent with application of the codes
on the combustor which is employed in the older Siemens gas turbine, the SGT-800.
Summarizing the main objectives of this thesis would thus be:
 Computational mesh optimization for the 4th generation DLE burner with the main goal
to minimize the cell count using Ansys Fluent software
 Show the differences in results between CFD codes Ansys Fluent and Ansys CFX with
application on the ignition stage of the 3rd generation DLE burner
-1-
1.3 Siemens and gas turbines
1.3.1 A brief history of Siemens establishment
The global company Siemens has evolved from a small back building workshop in Berlin in
1847 known then as the Telegraphenbauanstalt von Siemens & Halske. Within a few decades
the small precision-engineering and electrical telegraph systems primarily producing
workshop developed into one of the world’s largest companies in electrical engineering and
electronics. The founder Werner Siemens, who was known as Werner von Siemens after
1888, had discovered the dynamoelectric principle in 1866 and after that the potential
applications for electricity were limitless. With the help of Siemens innovations, heavy-
current engineering began to evolve at a breath taking pace. The first electric railway operated
at the Berlin Trade Fair in 1879 together with the first electric streetlights installation in the
Kaisergalerie. In 1880 the first electric elevator was built in Mannheim and in 1881 the
world’s first electric streetcar went into operation in Berlin-Lichterfelde. The name of
Siemens had then become synonymous with electrical engineering. After Werner von
Siemens’ death in 1892 his successors followed the course he had set and constantly
advancing the company. Lighting, medical engineering, wireless communication, and in the
1920s household appliances were introduced. After World War II those were followed by
components, data processing systems, automotive systems and semiconductors. The goal was
apparent – to cover the whole electrical engineering, both light- and heavy-current electrical
engineering. [1]
In spite of the difficult political and economic conditions after World War I and after World
War II when the company was nearly completely destroyed had Siemens again regained its
former leading position in the world marketplace. The year 1966 represented a milestone in
the company’s development when the various activities and competences of the company,
Siemens & Halske AG, Siemens-Schuckertwerke AG and Siemens-Reiniger-Werke AG
merged to form Siemens AG. [1]
GAS TURBINES AT SIEMENS

As in 1866 Werner von Siemens discovered the dynamo-electric principle and thus enabled to
convert mechanical energy into electrical energy in an economical way, the invention gave
obvious means to manufacture also steam and gas turbines. Experimental gas turbines had
been however around in different forms since the early 1900s [4]. The first successful gas
turbine using rotary compressor and turbine was built by a Norwegian Aegidius Elling in
1903. It produced excess power of about 8kW [7]. Siemens established the first commercial
gas turbine power plant in Switzerland in the year of 1939 and then the year 1972 represents
the start of series production of a gas turbine with power output of 62.5 MW at the Berlin
plant. In 1980 was at the same site produced the world’s largest gas turbine (125 MW). The
record is still being held by Siemens as in 2011 the world record was set by the SGT5-8000H
which has a power output of mighty 400 MW. [3]
FROM STAL TO SIEMENS IN FINSPÅNG, SWEDEN

Roots of the industry in Finspång go all the way back to 1400s. The serious industry started in
1631 when the Dutchman Louis De Geer bought Finspongs Bruk from the royal family and
after that was Finspång one of the biggest cannon manufacturers in the world for a few
centuries. [5]
Swedish turbine history goes back to 1893 when Gustav De Laval starts De Laval Ångturbin
AB in Stockholm. In 1913 start brothers Birger och Fredrik Ljungström manufacture their
-2-
counter rotating radial steam turbine in Finspång under the name Svenska Turbinfabriks
Aktiebolaget Ljungström - STAL. With the end of 1950 the two companies unite under the
name Stal-Laval and develop steam turbine powered boats with great success. Already in
1944 begins development in the area of gas turbines. Under commission of Swedish Air
Forces development of three different jet engines was performed but at the end the Air Forces
choose a foreign engine. STAL quickly turns the knowledge into stationary turbines. In 1955
the turbine GT35 was presented which was based on the intended jet engine. The turbine had
originally output of 10MW and is today in its fourth generation and gives 17 MW – the model
is in fact SGT-500. The company has had many names but today is it known as Siemens
Industrial Turbomachinery AB since 2003 when the concern Siemens bought the company
then known as Alstom Power Sweden AB. [5]
Figure 1: The portfolio of Siemens gas turbines [34]
The Figure 1above shows the complete portfolio of the gas turbines produced by Siemens.
The wide gas turbine range has been designed and tailored to meet the challenges of the
dynamic market environment. With capacities ranging from 4 to 400 MW those models fulfill
the high requirements of a wide spectrum of applications in terms of efficiency, reliability,
flexibility and environmental compatibility. [34]
1.4 Gas turbines

A gas turbine is a type of internal combustion engine which in its most basic form consists of
an upstream rotating compressor coupled to a downstream turbine with a combustion chamber
in between. In the Figure 2 it can be seen the more advanced two-shaft gas turbine similar to
in the thesis mainly studied the new model SGT-750. The most simple single shaft turbine is
on the other hand without the power turbine shown in the Figure 2 (no 3’- 4 stage). An
example of a single shaft engine combustor is also briefly studied in this work, more
particularly the burner of the model SGT-800.
-3-
Figure 2: Two-shaft gas turbine [6]
As opposed to the internal combustion piston engine, gas turbine combustion is a continuous
process. For a turbine to produce a useful power, it must have a higher inlet pressure than the
pressure at the exit. To achieve this compressor is used to compress the ambient air to a
higher pressure (stage 1-2), energy is then added in the combustor by adding fuel in the air
and igniting it so that the combustion process generates a high-temperature flow (stage 2-3).
This high temperature and high pressure gas then enters the turbine which produces shaft
work output (stage 3-3’). The turbine shaft work is in the first place used to drive its own
compressor (approximately two thirds) and the net produced power (indicated by curve 3’- 4
in Figure 3) can finally be used for many different applications although gas turbines are
generally associated with aircraft jet propulsion systems. [7]
Figure 3: Brayton cycle pressure-volume diagram for a unit mass of working fluid [6]
The Figure 4 summarizes the basic applications of the net produced power and thereby the
basic types of gas turbine configurations. If the net power is not transferred further we can
basically speak about a turbojet engine where hot high-speed exhaust gases exit the turbine
and consequently push usually an aircraft in the opposite direction. If the shaft is coupled to a
propeller then we usually speak about turbo propeller or shortly turpoprop.
-4-
Figure 4: Examples of gas turbine configurations: (1) turbojet, (2) turboprop, (3) turboshaft, (4) high-bypass
turbofan, (5) low-bypass turbofan with afterburner [8]
Instead of a propeller a larger ventilator can be installed and so we get a (high-bypass)

turbofan engine which is nowadays mostly used by commercial passenger aircraft. Low-
bypass turbofans with afterburner are generally used by supersonic military aircraft. When a
turbine is employed to produce mechanical power we usually refer to a turboshaft engine and
in this group of gas turbines we can also find industrial turbines employed to drive various
loads such as electric generators, process compressors, pumps etc. [7]
As illustrated in the Figure 2 the hot gases exiting the main turbine (usually referred as the
compressor turbine) can drive another turbine (power turbine) which is disconnected from the
main shaft and this way we get two-shaft gas turbine. Gas turbines operating with a power
turbine are often used when there is a significant variation in the speed needed for the load.
Examples are pipelines compressors or pumps where conditions can demand a low speed load
but with high power demand. In those situations the gas turbine can operate at its maximum
speed (to achieve maximum power) and the power turbine can run at the speed of the load. [7]
Figure 5: Two-shaft gas turbine Siemens SGT-700 [9]
-5-
1.4.1 Combustion chambers
Let us start with the introduction to the main topic of this work – combustion chambers or
combustors. Combustor design is a complex task, often referred to as a “black art”, as it is
among all gas turbine engines’ components usually perceived as the least understood.
Discharged air from the engine compressor exits at a very high velocity. In order to avoid
unnecessary losses the first thing to after the compressor exit is to decelerate velocity – to
diffuse it and raise its static pressure. After the reduction of the dynamic pressure, the air then
enters the combustor burner and/or cooling system. [2] [10]
Figure 6: An early combustion chamber [12]
Since the speed of burning air and fuel mixture is usually only of the order of a few meters per
second the flame would still be blown away even in the diffused air stream. Therefore a
region of low or even negative axial velocity has to be created in the chamber and this is
achieved by swirl vanes. The flow from the swirl blades creates a region of low velocity
recirculation and it takes the form of a toroidal vortex (similar to a smoke ring). The vortex
thereby stabilizes and anchors the flame as seen in the Figure 7. It could for example be
arranged that the fuel injection from the nozzles intersects the recirculation vortex where the
fuel is together with general turbulence effectively mixed. [12]
Figure 7: Flame stabilizing and general airflow pattern [12]
A typical combustion process releases gases with temperature at about 1800-2000°C which is
far too hot for entry to the guide vanes of the turbine. Some portion of compressed air is
therefore not used for combustion but is on the other hand progressively introduced into the
flame tube. Another portion of the compressor air can be used for cooling the walls of the
-6-
flame tube. Certainly the design of a combustion chamber can vary considerably, but the
airflow distribution used to affect and maintain combustion is always very similar to the
described. [12]
There are, however, three main types of combustion chamber in use for gas turbines. These
are the multiple chamber (Figure 8), the tubo-annular chamber (Figure 9) and the annual
chamber (Figure 10). The former type is often used in industrial gas turbine engines and so is
in the case of SGT-750.
MULTIPLE COMBUSTION CHAMBER

The chambers at multiple chambers combustor are arrayed around the engine. Compressor air
is directed by ducts to pass into the individual chambers where each chamber has an inner
flame tube around which there is an air casing. In the Figure 8 the flame tubes are all
interconnected which allows each tube to operate at the same pressure. This also allows
combustion to propagate around the flame tubes during engine starting but this is, however,
not the case for the SGT-750. The former has air casings interconnected instead and to be able
to ignite the chambers has each chamber its own ignitor. [12]
Figure 8: Multiple combustion chambers [12]
CAN-ANNULAR COMBUSTION CHAMBER

The can-annular combustion chamber is an example of an evolution link between the multiple
chamber and the annular type of chamber. A number of flame tubes are arrayed inside a
common air casing. Airflow in the flame tube is similar to the flow of the multiple chambers
already described. This configuration combines the easiness of maintenance and overhaul
with the compactness of the annular system. [12]
-7-
Figure 9: Tubo-annular combustion chamber [12]
ANNULAR COMBUSTION CHAMBER

The annual combustion chamber consists of a single flame tube which is completely in
annular form and contained in an inner and outer casing. The liner consists of continuous,
circular, inner and outer shrouds with distinctive holes in the shrouds which allow secondary
air to enter the combustion chamber and thereby keeping the flame away from the shrouds.
Fuel is introduced through a series of nozzles or burners equipped with swirler vanes at the
upstream end of the liners so that the airflow through the flame tube is still similar to the
already described. [12] [13]
Figure 10: Annular combustion chamber [12]
The main advantage of the annular chamber is that it is able to use the limited space most
effective. The construction itself is relatively simple but still permits high quality air and fuel
mixing. Because in comparison with a comparable tubo-annular chamber the wall area is
much higher, the amount of cooling air required to prevent flame tube overheating is less.
This reduction of cooling air raises the combustion efficiency to greatly eliminate unburned
-8-
fuel and oxidizes the carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide and thus reducing air pollution.
Another advantage is that the turbine inlet flow and temperature distribution in tangential
direction is more even which results in easier optimization of a turbine for high efficiency.
This type of combustion chamber has many advantages and at the same time considerably
saves weight and production costs but employing and developing this type of combustor has
two distinctive disadvantages – maintenance and testing. The construction does not allow
simple assembly, disassembly and inspection of the combustor chambers as the other two
types do. From testing point of view can combustors may be easily tested in single burner
high pressure combustion tests rigs without compromising the hat side design, while drastic
simplifications are required for basic tests of annular systems. A consequence of this
downside is that annular combustion system development projects have a larger risk of a
delay to fulfil project goals. This types of combustors are obviously the best candidates to be
employed in aircraft engines but not always in large industrial gas turbines. [12] [13]
1.5 The Dry Low Emissions Combustors

In the middle of the 1970s increased focus on environmental issues led to increased research
on new and better gas turbines with water and steam cooling methods which was called “Wet
Low Emission” (WLE). The best technology was in 1980s able to reduce NOx emissions to
42ppm and later to 25ppm. In the late 1980s the gas turbine producers started to develop “Dry
Low Emission” technology (DLE) to be able to avoid the technology that demanded water or
steam injection. The technology was then in the next ten years developed leading to a
reduction of NOx emissions less than 25ppm. [15]
This approach is to burn most (at least 75%) of the fuel at cool and fuel lean conditions to
prevent any major production of NOx. The principal strategy of such combustion systems is
to premix fuel and air before the mixture enters combustion chamber and to have a lean
mixture in order to lower the flame temperature and thus reduce NOx emission. Figure 11
shows a schematic comparison of a typical DLE combustor parallel with a conventional
combustor. Both are equipped with a swirler to create required flow conditions to stabilize the
flame but DLE burner has on the other hand much larger injector because it contains the
fuel/air premixing chamber. [15]
Figure 11: A schematic comparison of a typical DLE combustor and a conventional combustor
-9-
The DLE injector has (at least) two fuel circuits: main fuel and pilot fuel. Generally is most of
the fuel (the main fuel) injected into the airstream immediately downstream of the swirler at
the inlet to the premixing chamber. The pilot fuel is on the other hand injected directly into
the combustion chamber with little or no premixing. As the flame temperature is now closer
to the lean limit than in the conventional combustion system, the flame is now much more
prone to combustion instabilities and flame out. This tends to happen often when the engine
load is reduced and it would happen if no action was taken. The mixture would at this point
become either too lean to burn or would lead to combustion instabilities. A small proportion
of the fuel is therefore always burned richer to provide a stable “piloting” zone and the
remainder is burned lean. [15]
1.5.1 The Siemens SGT-800 and 3rd generation DLE burner

In this work the new gas turbine SGT-750 is mainly discussed but beside this there is also a
brief mesh study and a comparison of the CFD results between two different solvers used
(Ansys CFX and Ansys Fluent) to simulate fuel and air mixing of the 3rd generations DLE
burner during the ignition stage.
Figure 12: The SGT-800 [35]
The SGT-800 is available in three versions with power output of 47.5, 50.5 and 53.0 MW
respectively. The main design features of the most powerful version of the single shaft turbine
are 15-stage axial compressor with pressure ratio of 21.4:1, annular combustion chamber with
thirty 3rd generation DLE burners and a 3-stage turbine design. It is used for electrical power
generation with possibility for combined heat and power generation. Electrical efficiency is
rated at 39 % and NOx emissions are kept below 15 ppm. [36]
Figure 13: The Siemens 3rd generation DLE burner [2]
-10-
1.5.2 The Siemens SGT-750 and 4th generation DLE burner
The new Siemens SGT-750 is a low-weight industrial gas turbine designed to incorporate size
and weight advantages whilst maintaining the robustness, flexibility and longevity of the
traditional heavy-duty industrial gas turbine. The two-shaft gas turbine has a power output of
37 MW for power generation, or of 38.2 MW for mechanical drive. [37]
Figure 14: The SGT-750 [37]
The turbine was specifically designed for long operation times with extended overhaul
intervals and features easy maintenance. Its main design features are 13-stage axial
compressor, a two stage air cooled compressor turbine and a two-stage counter rotating non-
cooled axial flow power turbine. The combustion chamber (see Figure 15) system consists of
eight tubular combustion chambers. The design has been developed with focus on high
reliability and easy maintenance. Individual combustion chambers can be simply replaced
from the compressor side without disassembling the turbine module. [37]
Main 1 gas Main 2 gas
Convective combustor cooling

Quarl
RPL burner
Pilot burner
Figure 15: The 4th generation DLE burner [38]
The dual fuel option has DLE capability on gas and for liquid fuel operation water injection
can be used to reduce NOx emission. The 4th generation DLE burner is specifically designed
for extremely low emissions over a wide operation range of the turbine. A compressor
discharge air bleed is also available to further reduce the emissions at very low loads. Further
important improvements over the older DLE burner are optimized aerodynamics and fuel/air
mixing. Expected values for NOx and CO are below 15 ppm. [38]
-11-
This system is thus designed to operate in the lean premixed combustion mode. The
aerodynamics of the burner is designed so that a well-defined recirculation zone is formed and
is bounded by the quarl and aerodynamically anchored at the pilot tip to minimize axial
movement. The burner design features four independently controlled fuel lines for maximum
flexibility, see Figure 15. The burner is based on central stabilization technique which means
that the separate fuel lines feed the centrally located RPL (Rich-Pilot-Lean) burner, the pilot
burner and the two main passages (Main 1 and Main 2). [33]
The RPL burner represents a small pre-combustion chamber that is operated mostly in the fuel
rich regime at slightly higher temperature than the main flame. This small device has two
major purposes:
 it plays a role of an ignition burner, like a small torch that ignites the pilot and the main
flames
 it supports the main flame and widens the operating window of the main burner
The pilot burner features swirler wings with an internal gas supply. Its location provides that
the hot exhaust gases from the RPL burner are in close contact with oncoming fresh gas/air
mixture. This central stabilization technique gives the possibility to optimize the fuel profiles
of the main stages where the majority of the fuel is injected. [33]
-12-
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter is intended to present the basic theoretical background used in the CFD
simulations performed within this project. Not are details are given here therefore a more
interested reader is advised to refer to literature that will be pointed out.
2.1 Governing equations in Fluid Mechanics

The set of governing equations used in fluid mechanics is based on conservation laws which
are conservation of mass, momentum and energy. These partial differential equations are also
known as the Navier-Stokes equations as they were derived independently by Claude-Louis
Navier and George Gabriel Stokes in the early nineteenth century. They have no known
general analytical solution but can be discretized and solved numerically. Equations
describing other processes such as combustion or fuel/air mixing can also be solved in
conjunction with the Navier-Stokes equations. [16] Details about derivation of the following
conservation laws can be found in Ansys Documentation [17].
2.1.1 Mass Conversation Equation

The general equation for conservation of mass or known also as the continuity equation can
be written as follows:
∙ 0 (2.1)
The first term describes the rate of change of density in an (infinitesimally small) control
volume and the second term describes the mass flux rate through the surface of the control
volume.
2.1.2 Momentum Conservation Equation

Conservation of momentum in an inertial reference frame can be derived from the Newton’s
second law and combining it with the continuity equation it can be written as:
∙Π (2.2)
where the substantial derivative is defined as:

∙ 2.3
If we expand the equation (2.2) with help of (2.3) we get:
∙ ∙ 2.4
The first term on the left hand side describes the rate of change of momentum in a control
volume and the second term on the left hand side describes the momentum flux through the
surface of a control volume. The first term on the right hand side represents the body force per
unit volume and the second term on the right hand side describes the surface force per unit
volume applied on a fluid element. It consists of shear and normal stresses and the so called
viscous stress tensor Π for a Newtonian fluid is given by:
2
2.5
3
-13-
To get the final form of the momentum equation or the Navier-Stokes equation we combine
the Equations (2.4) and (2.5):
2
2.6
3
2.1.3 Conservation of energy

The conversation of energy equation can be derived by the first law of thermodynamics on an
infinitesimal fixed control volume to yield the equation with being the total energy per unit
volume:
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 2.7
The left hand side terms describe the rate of change of total energy in a control volume and
the total energy flux through the boundaries of a control volume respectively. On the right
hand side we have the rate of heat from external sources, heat flux through the boundaries,
work done on a control volume by body and surface forces respectively. The in the second
term can written as
2.8
which is known as Fourier’s law for heat transfer where is thermal conductivity.
2.1.4 Equation of state

To close the equation system formed by Equations (2.1), (2.6) and (2.7) we use the equation
of state. If we consider a compressible flow and disregard external heat addition or body
forces and use Equation (2.1) for the mass conservation equation, the momentum equation
(2.6) separated into three scalar equations and the energy equation (2.7) we have five scalar
equations. They contain, however, seven unknowns , , , , , . The perfect gas equation
of state is valid for gases whose intermolecular forces are negligible:
2.9
where is the specific gas constant. For low temperatures the specific heat capacity at
constant volume is constant therefore the internal energy can be defined as:
2.10
Now we have additional two equations that make seven equations with seven unknowns and
hence a closed system.
2.2 Turbulence
Nearly all flows in the nature and engineering practice are turbulent. Winds and currents in
the atmosphere and ocean or flows past transportation devices (vehicles, aircraft, ships …),
flows through all sorts of engines or in our case flow through the combustion chamber are all
turbulent. Turbulence is an enigmatic state of fluid flow which involves unpredictable
fluctuations that can be both beneficial and problematic. Both can be encountered in a
combustion chamber –turbulence is exploited for mixing of air and fuel but within the same
device it can lead to noise and efficiency losses. A summary of some of the most
characteristic features of turbulent flows would be: [18]
 Chaotic fluctuations in space and time
 A wide spectrum of scales of swirling flow structures (eddies)
-14-
 High diffusivity
 High Reynolds number
 Dissipation of kinetic energy into heat
One of the most important numbers in fluid mechanics, commonly used for description of the
turbulent flow regime, is the non-dimensional Reynolds number which is defined as a ratio
between the inertial and viscous forces:
2.11
Density , characteristic velocity and characteristic length scale represent the inertial
forces while the viscous forces are represented by dynamic viscosity . A high Reynolds
number therefore states the dominance of inertial forces over viscous forces in a turbulent
flow. At high Reynolds number a separation of flow scales occurs. The highly energetic large
scales (integral scales) limited by the geometrical restrictions break up and the energy is then
successively transferred to smaller and smaller eddies in a process known as the energy
cascade. At the final stage the molecular viscosity is effectively dissipating the kinetic energy
of the smallest eddies into heat. [19]
If we consider a turbulent flow not undergoing any rapid changes in the mean flow, the
turbulence can be assumed to be in a state of quasi-equilibrium. That is in the sense that the
dissipation occurring at the smallest scales is in balance with the kinetic energy transfer from
the large scales. This important assumption is a basis for turbulence modeling. [20] [21]
2.3 Turbulence modelling

Turbulent flow is fully governed by the Navier-Stokes equations and can be solved
numerically by Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS). The DNS simulation is three-
dimensional and time dependent but the range of time and length scales are large and increase
rapidly with the Reynolds number. To cover the ranges we need very fine computational
meshes and small time step sizes which lead to extremely high demand of computer
resources. An alternative to solving for all scales exists in form of solving the mean flow
characteristics averaged in time. [20] [21]
2.3.1 Raynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations

There are, however, several ways to model turbulent flow but the most widely used and also
used in this work is the Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equation approach abbreviated and
known as RANS or Reynolds averaging. It is obtained by splitting the total velocity and
pressure fields into a mean and a fluctuating part. This is called the Reynolds decomposition
and can be written as i.e.: [20] [21]
2.12
and
2.13
where the mean components are denoted by capital letters and the fluctuation parts with a
prime. Inserting the decompositions into continuity and momentum equation and averaging
the whole equations yields Reynolds averaged continuity equation and Reynolds averaged
momentum equation. A similar procedure can be applied to the energy equation where the
total enthalpy can be decomposed into average and fluctuating part. All the derivations can be
found in [21] where the subject of turbulence is well covered. [20] [21]
-15-
The mean flow equation is usually referred to as the Reynolds equation. For simplicity a
simpler Reynolds equation which is valid for incompressible flows will be presented here. We
start with the incompressible version of the Navier-Stokes equation:
1
2.14
and after applying the Reynolds decomposition (2.12) we get the mean flow incompressible
Reynolds equation:
1
2.15
We can see that the Equations (2.14) and (2.15) look quite similar where the “turbulence
interaction term” takes a role similar to that of the viscous stress tensor. Hence there is
defined the turbulent stress or so called Reynolds stress tensor as:
2.16
This tensor represents the turbulence closure problem since the continuity (1) and Reynolds
equation (3) make up four equations while after averaging we have ten unknowns. These are
the mean velocity and pressure , i.e. four unknowns and the six Reynolds stress tensor
components. To be able to close the system of equations the Reynolds stress tensor is the
subject of modeling. [20] [21]
2.3.1.1 Eddy viscosity models

Similarly as we can isolate the isotropic part (pressure) of the stress tensor for a Newtonian
fluid we can also isolate isotropic part of the Reynolds stress tensor which is in this case
kinetic energy (per unit mass) of the turbulent fluctuations: [20] [21]
1
2.17
2
with which we can rewrite the Reynolds stress as (for the details about derivation please refer
to Pope [21]):
2 2
2.18
3 3
This expression is often referred to as Bousinesq expression. In analogy with the contribution
from pressure, 2/3 times the kinetic energy of the fluctuations gives an isotropic contribution
to the Reynolds stress. The second part represents the anisotropic part and this is the part that
is primarily described when an eddy viscosity concept is used to model turbulence. The
isotropic part is on the other hand usually included in a modified pressure term. The eddy
viscosity model, directly analogous to the Newtonian fluid stress description, can be written:
[20] [21]
2
2.19
3
or for a simple shear flow
2.20
-16-
In the expressions (2.19) and (2.20) the eddy viscosity is a property of the flow while the
molecular viscosity is a property of fluid. The eddy viscosity is not considered constant but
is governed by length scale (Λ) and velocity scale (V): [20] [21]
~ 2.21
In most turbulent flows the momentum mixing is prevailed by large energetic eddies.
Modeling of Reynolds stress tensor with six components in general three-dimensional flow is
so reduced to model the large eddy length and velocity scales. This is a large reduction in
complexity and therefore very suitable for implementation in CFD codes for general flows.
[20] [21]
Eddy viscosity models can be classified into three main groups:
ALGEBRAIC MODELS OR ZERO EQUATION MODELS

In algebraic or zero equation models length and velocity scales are related to the mean flow
velocity field and geometry of the flow via for example velocity gradient or distance to the
wall etc. These models work relatively well for specific cases they are designed for, like
attached boundary layers for example but they are, however, not very general. [20] [21]
ONE EQUATION MODELS

Here one is typically solving the transport equation for kinetic energy, , or the eddy
viscosity, . These models work also well for specific cases like attached boundary layers
and other thin shear flows, but are not well suited for complex flows. A good example is the
Spalart-Allmaras model which solves for eddy viscosity. This model has been used
extensively for aeronautical applications. [20] [21]
TWO EQUATION MODELS

In two equation models two transport equations for two quantities are solved that can be used
for determining length and velocity scales needed to determine eddy viscosity. Most common
quantities are the turbulence kinetic energy ( ), its dissipation rate ( ) and the turbulence
frequency ( ). No additional global information is generally needed thus such models are
referred to as complete. Therefore they are most widely used and they have also been chosen
to employ in this work. [20] [21]
2.3.1.1.1 The standard eddy viscosity model

The turbulence kinetic energy ( ) and its dissipation rate ( ) are computed from the two
model transport equations which are solved together with RANS equations for the mean flow.
The model equations which can be derived from transport equation for turbulent kinetic
energy read
2.22
2.23
where is turbulent kinetic energy production term,

2 and 2.24
-17-
For details please refer to Pope [21] or any other good book about modeling turbulence.
However the values , , , , are model coefficients with standard values which are
usually not changed. II is invariant of the mean flow strain rate tensor which reads [20] [21]
2.25
where the mean flow strain rate tensor is
1
2.26
2
2.3.1.1.2 The eddy viscosity model

Other alternatives to the eddy dissipation, , as the length scale determining quantity have
been proposed. One of the advantages of the model is near wall treatment for low
Reynolds number flows. The model does not involve complex nonlinear damping functions
that need to be applied to the model for near wall treatment. Therefore the
turbulence model developed by Wilcox is generally more accurate and robust for such flow
conditions. [16][20]
In most models the turbulence frequency is defined as [20]
2.27
The furthermore assumes that the turbulence viscosity is linked to the turbulence
kinetic energy and dissipation with relation:
2.28
Similarly as in molecular viscosity there is a relation
2.29
The model equations read
2.30
2 2.31
where , , , , and are again model constants with standard values.

A major problem with the standard is turbulence interfaces treatment. An example
would be the boundary layer edge where the use of this model leads to unphysical sensitivity
to free-stream values of kinetic energy and turbulence frequency . In practice this results
for example in over prediction of computed turbulence energy in the stagnation region of an
airfoil and general sensitivity to the conditions in the free stream. There are some different
proposals to correct the problematic behavior, however, the best known and very popular
solution was proposed by Menter. [20] [21]
2.3.1.1.3 The SST model

Menter proposed basically a hybrid model which combines advantages of both models.
is thus used in the free stream and blends with help of a blending function to a
-18-
formulation near the wall. In the Menter model, which is known as the Shear Stress Transport
turbulence model, the blending between those two models is achieved by transforming the
model into equations based on and . This leads to introduction of a cross-diffusion
term added to the equation: [20][21]
1
2 1 2.32
Both combined models still fail to properly predict the onset and amount of flow separation
from smooth surfaces where the main reason is that both models do not account for the
transport of the turbulent shear stress. This results in overprediction of turbulent viscosity.
The proper behavior of the transport of shear stress is thus obtained by a limiter function to
the formulation of the turbulent viscosity . [16]
THE SST TURBULENCE MODEL IN ANSYS CFX AND FLUENT

Let us take a look little closer at how the SST model is implemented in Ansys CFX and in
Fluent, but however, more interested reader should refer to Ansys documentation [16] where
all the details are thoroughly explained. Although the basic model formulation is very similar
in both solvers, the implementation of the model differs slightly, which may besides different
discretization approaches contribute to slightly different results. The turbulence model
equations are presented in a slightly different form in the software documentation therefore
they have been rewritten in a new form to be able to more easily compare the equations.
ANSYS CFX
2.33
,
1
2 1
, 2.34
The first right hand side terms in both equations represent effective diffusivities where ,
and , are the turbulent Prantl number for and respectively. The third term on the right
hand side in the Equation (2.33) represents the dissipation of . The second term in the
Equation (2.34) may be already recognized as the cross-diffusion term where F is the first
blending function based on the distance to the nearest surface and on the flow variables. The
second blending function F , similar to F , is included in the formulation for calculation of
turbulent viscosity which restricts the already mentioned limiter function to the wall
boundary layer. Formulations for blending functions are not given here so for details please
refer to Ansys documentation [16]. The third right hand side term in the Equation (2.34)
represents the production of and the fourth term represents dissipation of . [16]
and are additional buoyancy production terms which are turned on in CFX only
when buoyancy is modelled. All coefficients of the new model are in CFX simply a linear
combination of the corresponding coefficients of the underlying models ( and ):
[16]
1 2.35
where the coefficients are listed in the Table 1. [16]
-19-
ANSYS FLUENT
2.36
,
1
2 1
, 2.37

The SST turbulence model in Fluent rewritten in a form suitable for comparison seems to be
almost identical to the formulation in CFX. The terms S , S , are user defined source terms
that can among others also be used to model buoyancy turbulence as in CFX. However, note
that the production term is evaluated differently and although most of the model
coefficients are the same, they are treated slightly differently in Fluent. The coefficient can
be for example even dependent on and speed of the sound when compressibility correction
is turned on but in this work has been, however, turned off as this function is not
recommended for general use. The coefficients and are otherwise dependent on ,
, , , and , , , respectively, but are with the standard values of the named
coefficients almost identical to those used in CFX as seen in the Table 1. [16]
Table 1: Model coefficients values [16]
, , , ,
CFX 0.09 0.555 0.075 2 2 0.44 0.0828 1 1.168
Fluent 0.09 0.553 0.075 1.176 2 0.44 0.0828 1 1.168
Blending of the coefficients and is accomplished in the same manner as in CFX, that is
according to the Equation (2.35) while there is noticeable difference in blending of the
coefficients , and , . Fluent uses here nonlinear recipe which can be written as: [16]
2.38
1
On the first sight identical SST turbulence model in both solvers can therefore in practice
contribute to slightly different results when comparing CFX and Fluent calculations.
However, if the coefficients and are manually changed in both solvers so that
, , , 2.39
and
, , , 2.40
then we can obtain a new turbulence model which is theoretically identical in both solvers and
can be valid for comparison between Fluent and CFX results. This statement holds if the
relation (2.28) can be used in the production term in the Equation (2.37) which makes the
model equations identical for both solvers. There is an uncertainty how the production term
is evaluated in Fluent therefore this issue will be addressed to Ansys customer support.
The details about blending functions, production limiters, wall scale and near wall treatment
employed in the Menter SST model can be found in Ansys documentation [16]. This
turbulence model is becoming more and more popular as it can be used for wide variety of
flows especially when dealing with flow separation. It is the Airbus standard turbulence
model and also exclusively used in this thesis work. [20]
-20-
2.3.2 Reynolds stress models (RSM)
The eddy viscosity turbulence models rely on the Bussinesq assumption which is a major
simplification. Some of the deficits of these models are the modeling of the production term
where the model production is insensitive to rotation, has incorrect asymptotic behavior for
large shear rates. In the Reynolds stress model the production is exact as it includes the
rotation rate tensor and not only the strain rate tensor as in Equation (2.24). However, as the
Reynolds stress tensor has six independent components we need here six additional partial
differential equations to solve together with a length scale determining property such as the
dissipation rate . Thus we end up with seven additional equations. This approach gives better
results but is computationally expensive and not as robust and easy to implement into CFD
codes as the eddy viscosity models. [20] [21]
2.3.3 Large Eddy Simulation (LES)

There exist many other different turbulent models which are often hybrids between different
formulations but they will not be presented here as they are not associated with this thesis
work. However, it might be interesting to briefly present Large Eddy Simulation approach. As
the name itself suggests it resolves large eddies. It resolves the large scale turbulence and
models only the smallest scales. The smallest scale tend to be more isotropic and more in the
equilibrium than the large scales and are therefore easier to model. As already mentioned
most of the turbulence kinetic energy is contained in the large scales which means that
resolving the smallest scales is not that critical for the complete simulation. LES is still rather
expensive compared to eddy viscosity models but it is being gradually introduced also in the
industry. [20]
2.4 Species transport

In this work we are dealing with air/gas mixing which also needs a certain model to employ.
Most of the calculations in this work are done in Ansys Fluent therefore equations for species
transport employed by Fluent are presented here. The software predicts the local mass fraction
of each species through the solution of convection-diffusion equation for the ith species
which takes the following form:
∙ ∙ 2.41
In the above equation is the net rate of production of species i by chemical reaction. This
term is applicable when we are dealing with simulation of combustion together with which
is the rate of creation by addition from the dispersed phase plus any eventual user defined
sources. [16]
2.4.1 Mass diffusion in turbulent flows

In case of turbulent flows the mass diffusion term J in the Equation (2.41) is solved by
, , 2.42
In the above equation is the turbulent Schmidt number which is defined as
2.43
where is turbulent viscosity and is turbulent diffusivity. The dimensionless number

describes thus the ratio between the turbulent transport of momentum and the turbulent
-21-
transport of mass or eventually any other passive scalar. The Schmidt number may be
adjusted to increase or decrease mixing to compensate for turbulence model errors, however,
in this work the default value of 0.7 has been used. [16]
2.4.2 Species transport in the energy equation

For multicomponent mixing flow the transport of enthalpy due to species diffusion is included
in the energy equation: [16]
∙ 2.44
2.4.3 Equivalence ratio

Solution of the species transport equation is a mass fraction or eventually a molar fraction of a
specific species. However, a very useful parameter in internal combustion engines is fuel to
oxidant equivalence ratio or also reciprocal parameter oxidant to fuel equivalence ratio . In
this work fuel-oxidant equivalence ratio will be used as it is commonly used in gas turbine
industry. It is defined as:
/
2.45
/
This means that when 1 there is an excess of oxidant present in the mixture or the
mixture is “lean” and when 1 there is an excess of fuel or the mixture is “rich”. When
1 then the actual mixture is equal to an ideal or stoichiometric mixture which
theoretically means that the amount of oxidant present in the mixture is just enough to
completely burn all the fuel. [26]
2.5 Numerical methods

There exist different numerical approaches for solving the set of partial differential equations
describing the behaviour of fluid flow like finite differences, finite elements, Boltzmann
method etc. All approaches have certain advantages and disadvantages but, however, for fluid
flow the finite volume method is the most suitable and natural method as it involves directly
the approximation of conservation laws and is robust also in complex geometries. [19]
Most of commercial and in-house CFD codes implement finite volume method although
discretization of the governing equations may differ. In this work was mainly used Ansys
Fluent solver but a brief comparison of results using both Ansys Fluent and CFX was made
therefore in the next section the main differences between those two solvers are also
presented.
2.5.1 Discretization
The governing equations need to be discretized on discrete mesh grid points and evaluated at
discrete times when dealing with time dependent flows. The set of equations can be
practically ordered accordingly to their characteristic behaviour and can thereby be written in
the following form: [19]
2.46
-22-
where represents conservative variables, contain convective fluxes, contains viscous
fluxes and are source terms, e.g. gravity. The mentioned flux terms can be written as:
0
, , 2.47
3
Equation (2.46) represents a differential equation but in order to be able to discretize

governing equation using the fine volume method we have to write it in conservative form or
integral form. Using Gauss divergence theorem we rewrite the Equation (2.46) for each
control volume outlined by surface elements as: [19]
2.48
In the Equation (2.48) is the normalized normal vector on a surface element which we
get after applying the Gauss divergence theorem. For a discretized finite volume the surface
integrals can be transformed into algebraic expressions as discrete sums: [19]
, , , , , 2.49
where index 0 refers to the current control volume and is the total number of bounding
surfaces of the control volume which is six in an example of hexahedral volume element.
Furthermore the index refers to an individual surface of the current control volume. [19]
The flux terms in the governing equations are grouped according to their physical behaviour
as seen in the Equation (2.47) so that different appropriate discretization schemes can be used
for each term category. [19]
2.5.1.1 Cell-centered and vertex-centered Finite Volume Methods

Both cell-centered and cell-vertex discretization are successfully used in finite volume codes
but it is still very difficult to draw a conclusion which one is a better choice for a CFD code
discretized on an unstructured grid. In this work Ansys Fluent represents the first choice and
Ansys CFX the other one. It has been debated for a long time which commercial code is a
better choice but, however, generally speaking Fluent has a reputation that it is more difficult
to achieve satisfactory convergence but when converged it gives slightly better results. Ansys
CFX is on the other hand more forgiving in sense of robustness and efficiency.
Measuring performances using above discretization approaches highly depend on the
computational environments, such as programming languages, operating systems and so on,
therefore it is necessary to assess cell-centered and vertex-centered discretizations in identical
working environments. G. Whang in the article [22] presents an interesting study of
comparing and evaluation of both approaches using the DLR TAU code which offers both
finite volume formulations within its solver. [22]
BASIC DIFFERENCES
The basic difference between the formulations lies in the construction of control volumes. In
the cell-centered (Fluent) approach the control volumes are identical with primarily generated
grid cells as shown on the left side of the Figure 16 where we can see both formulations
applied on the same part of a two-dimensional grid. The unknowns are thus defined at the cell
-23-
centroids while in the vertex-centered approach solution variables are located at the primal
grid vertices and the control volumes are reformed around each primal grid node. This is
achieved by a median dual mesh construction which connects the centroids of primal cells
with surrounding midpoints of faces and edges. The dual-median grid construction is shown
in the Figure 17.
Figure 16: Illustration of cell-centered (left) and vertex-centered (right) type control volume constructions [23]
The Figure 16 shows only an illustration to show the basic difference between the approaches
as there exist different approaches even within the same vertex-centered discretization
category. The control volume construction shown in the right side of the Figure 16 represents
more precisely a Voronoi volume [24] while Ansys CFX employs the more popular dual
median construction shown in the Figure 17.
Another important difference between the cell-centered
and vertex-centered grid approach relates to the number
of control volumes or degrees of freedom which is
determined by the number of primary grid cells and
vertices for the respective formulation. The ratio between
number of grid cells and vertices varies with grid
topology and so for pure three-dimensional tetrahedral
mesh it is in the range of 5 to 6 while in pure structured
meshes this ratio closes to one. This fact leads to the
Figure 17: Dual median grid
argument that the cell-centered scheme should be more construction [24]
accurate on the same unstructured grid. On the other hand
has a control volume in the cell-centered grid formulation a smaller number of neighbor cell
comparing to a control volume in the vertex-centered grid formulation which can affect
accuracy of the linear reconstruction of gradients as the gradient of a flow variable is
approximated at each control volume center taking into
account the neighboring control volumes.
It is perhaps worth to point out that the construction of
the median dual mesh can produce control volumes of
bad quality. This can happen especially for grids with
large distortions. A typical example is when a prism layer
is generated at some sharp boundary like a trailing edge
of an airfoil (see Figure 18). In this case an arrow-shaped Figure 18: Median dual control volume
control volumes will be formed which can greatly constructed at sharp edge corner [22]
decrease performance of a solver. [22]
For details about differences in flux integration, gradient evaluation and boundary treatment
please refer to G. Wang [22] and/or Ansys documentation [16]. In the next section flux
integration and with respect to the two finite volume methods will be briefly presented.
-24-
FLUX INTEGRATION
One characteristic of the cell-vertex approach is that the edges of the dual mesh always cross
the midpoints of the face connected with two corresponding vertices while in the cell-centered
approach this property generally cannot be achieved. This advantage brings a lot of benefits in
surface flux computing, especially for central discretization. Therefore Ansys CFX uses
central discretization as default spatial discretization. The upwind discretization is on the
other hand better choice for Fluent solver.
a) Vertex-centered b) Cell-centered
Figure 19: Solution reconstruction for vertex-centered and cell-centered formulation in 2D unstructured mesh
[22]
Just in order to briefly present the basic difference between approaches shown in the Figure
19 an example with Roe flux splitting scheme extracted from the article [22] is considered.
The convective flux over the control volume face with edge can be written as:
1
, | | 2.50
2
If we assume that the solution has piecewise linear reconstruction over the control volume
then the left and right states for vertex-centered formulation can be reconstructed as:
1
∙ 2.51
2
1
∙ 2.52
2
where is the gradient of and is the value of limiter function at vertex , represents
the vector from vertex to vertex as seen in Figure 19. The factor ½ is a result from the
midpoint property of median dual grid. [22]
For cell-centered approach the above formulation should be modified as
∙ 2.53
∙ 2.54
where and represent vectors pointing from cell centers to the barycenter of the control
volume face.
TESTING OF CELL-CENTERED AND VERTEX-CENTERED SCHEME

G.Wang [22] conducted several test cases with three different airfoil designs at different flow
conditions such as low and high Mach number flows. On a turbulent flat plate case he tested
also performance when using structured grid. All comparisons were supported also with
experimental results. His conclusions actually confirmed what has already been said about
Ansys Fluent’s reputation.
-25-
G. Wang’s results indicate that the cell-centered scheme and the cell-vertex scheme have
nearly the same accuracy and efficiency for most of the structured grid test cases. This is
expected as the number of degrees of freedom is the same. For the test cases with unstructured
grid in general the cell-centered formulation is less efficient but more accurate compared to
vertex-centered on the same mesh. [22]
2.5.1.2 Spatial discretization
ANSYS CFX
A number of spatial discretisation schemes have been developed either for specific flows or
for more general application. Ansys CFX offers technically only two types of spatial
discretization schemes. These are the 1st order upwind difference scheme and 2nd order central
difference scheme. The default option used in CFX is the High Resolution Scheme which
uses a special “recipe” shown in the expression below: [16]
∙∆ 2.55
In a discretised equation all the variables are stored at the nodes but several terms are
evaluated on the surface of a control volume or in the integration point denoted as . The
advective term for a quantity is now calculated using a mix of both available discretization
schemes. If is equal to zero then a 1st order upwind scheme is obtained (which is robust but
by its nature tend to smear out steep gradients and is therefore inaccurate) and for is equal to
1 then the scheme is fully second order accurate but may lead to unphysical oscillations. The
value can be manually chosen but the default High Resolution Scheme uses a special
nonlinear function for at each node computed to be as close to 1 as possible. [16]
ANSYS FLUENT
Fluent has many different spatial discretization schemes to choose from and they are generally
 1st order upwind scheme
 Power law scheme
 2nd order upwind scheme
 2nd order central differencing scheme
 QUICK scheme
 3rd order MUSCL scheme
 Modified HRIC scheme
The central differencing scheme can be, however, used only for LES calculations and offers
similar blending as described by the Equation (2.55). Nevertheless the default scheme which
can be used for accurate calculations of a wide variety of flows and mesh types is 2nd order
upwind scheme. Blending between 1st and 2nd order upwind schemes is also possible for cases
with problematic convergence and at a certain flow conditions when a converged solution to
steady-state is not possible due to local flow fluctuations that can be both physical and
numerical. Blending factor can be chosen manually as Fluent does not offer the “smart”
blending function as described in the previous section. For details about specific numerical
scheme please refer to Ansys documentation [16].
-26-
2.5.1.3 Gradient evaluation
Gradients are needed for constructing values of a scalar at the control volume boundaries and
on the other hand for computing secondary diffusion terms and velocity derivatives. Ansys
CFX employs the standard finite element approach to accomplish both with use of shape
functions. Ansys Fluent offers three methods to compute gradients: Green-Gauss Cell-Based,
Green-Gaus Node-Based and Least Squares Cell-Based. The default method which is also
used for all the calculations in this work is the latter choice as it is both accurate and
computationally relatively inexpensive. [16]
2.5.2 Temporal discretization

For time dependent simulations the governing equations must be discretized in both space and
time. In this work a steady-state solution was needed but none of the calculations with
intermediate mesh density and more that 1st order accuracy in space converged to a steady-
state solution due to local transient behaviour which can be either physical or numerical. The
solution was then to run transient calculations with time statistics sampling in order to obtain
a time average of the time dependent converged solution. [16]
Both Ansys CFX and Fluent offer 1st and 2nd order accurate implicit backward Euler schemes.
In this work the 1st order accurate scheme was used since the object of interest was time
averaged solution therefore the typical steep temporal gradients diffusion behaviour has been
taken advantage of. The implicit 1st order backward Euler scheme can be written as: [16]
2.56
where is a scalar quantity, 1 is value at the next time level, is value at the current
time level and function D incorporates any spatial discretization. The implicit scheme is a
good choice as it is unconditionally stable (does not have a time step size limitation). Fluent
offers also explicit time integration which is available only with the density based solver. [16]
2.5.3 Continuity and momentum equation coupling

Since its initial release the Fluent solver has provided two basic solver algorithms. The first is
density-based coupled solver (DBCS in the Figure 20) which solves all the governing fluid
dynamics equations (continuity, momentum and energy) in a coupled manner. This solver is
applicable when there is a strong coupling or interdependence between density, energy and
species. Examples of such flow are high speed compressible flow with combustion,
hypersonic flow and shock interactions. The second solver is pressure-based segregated solver
that solves the equations in a segregated or uncoupled manner and it has proven to be
successfully applicable to wide range of physical models. However in some applications the
convergence rate is not satisfactory generally due to the need for coupling between the
continuity and momentum equations. Those situations in which equation coupling can be
beneficiary include rotating machinery flows and internal flows in complex geometries. The
third, a new option in Fluent, is pressure-based coupled solver (PBCS) which is a similar
solver as the Ansys CFX solver. This algorithm solves the continuity and momentum
equations in a coupled fashion. This approach removes approximations due to isolating the
equations and permits the dependence of momentum and continuity on each other. This
results in more rapid and stable convergence rate and improved robustness so that errors
associated with initial conditions, nonlinearities in physical models or deformed meshes do
not affect stability of the solution process as much as with segregated algorithms. [16] [25]
-27-
A flowchart illustrating the pressure-based and density based solvers is shown in Figure 20.
As seen the segregated solver solves momentum equations for the unknown velocity
components one at a time as scalar equations and after that it solves a separate equation for
continuity and pressure. The pressure solution is here used to correct the velocity components
such that continuity is satisfied. In the case when the flow equations are coupled together, the
coefficients computed for each equation contain dependent variables from the other equations.
[25]
Figure 20: Flowchart illustrating Fluent solver algorithms [25]
In the case of segregated solver these variables are supplied merely by using previously
computed values and this introduces a decoupling error. This error can result in delaying
convergence in cases where strong pressure-velocity coupling exists. As the pressure-based
solver solves continuity and momentum equations in a fully coupled fashion this means that a
single matrix equation is solved and for that it is needed about twice the memory per cell for
the coupled solver. In practice this means that the coupled solver needs slightly more
computer time per iteration but on the other hand it takes less iterations to converge to the
final solution. [25]
Some of the facts about the two types of solvers have been confirmed in this project. In this
work the geometry of the 4th generation DLE burner is extremely complex and the otherwise
computationally less expensive segregated solver’s performance was inferior to the coupled
solver. All attempted steady state runs were therefore run with coupled solver. However, for
transient cases the performance of the segregated solver was superior to the coupled when
simulating the 4th generation DLE burner. The reason lies in the fact that the segregated solver
needs less computer time per iteration and that if the initial conditions do not differ
significantly from the final solution then even the segregated solver advances towards
converged solution efficiently. Most of the transient cases in this work were run with around
15 iterations per time step. The coupled solver needed about 1 to 2 more iterations to achieve
convergence criteria but net computer time per time step was about 10 - 15 % lower than
when using the segregated solver. On the other hand, when simulating the 3rd generation DLE
burner in the ignition stage where there is compressible (choked) flow included, the coupled
solver option was more time effective. Obviously because those flow conditions result in
stronger coupling between pressure and velocity.
-28-
2.5.4 Calculation procedures at periodic boundaries
All calculations in this work have been performed with help of cost effective 90° and 30°
sector models instead of employing a full model. All periodic sides that come in pairs have to
be specifically defined as rotationally periodic sides. A CFD solver treats the flow at a
periodic boundary as though the opposing periodic plane (called a shadow zone in Fluent) is a
direct neighbour to the cells adjacent to the first periodic boundary. This means that when
calculating the flow through the periodic boundary adjacent to a fluid cell, the flow conditions
at the fluid cell adjacent to the opposite periodic plane (the shadow zone) are used. Therefore
the periodic sides of cut geometry have to be identical. When generating a computational
mesh for a periodic model a special option in a mesh generation software has to be turned on
which ensures that the nodes will line up along an axi-symmetric model and forces the nodes
to be rotationally periodic with one another. [16]
-29-
3 METHODOLOGY
In this chapter the basic approach and methodology is briefly presented. All details about
procedures and concepts will be discussed in the next sections.
3.1 Geometry and mesh creation

An established meshing approach for a single SGT-750 burner demands between 40 and 75
million grid cells. Since this represents an extensive effort for the available computer
resources some periodic 90° sector models have also been tested and they gave acceptable
results in modelling both air/fuel mixing and combustion. A 90° sector model of the burner
seems a reasonable choice for a mesh study as solution time is only approximately ¼ of the
solution time needed for a full 360° model while the obtained results should be very close to
the full model, moreover it should be fully valid for a mesh convergence study.
New 90° sector geometry was created where special care was taken to cut the full model so
that all details of the complex geometry were correctly captured. At the same time any
eventual sharp corners in the cut geometry have to be strictly avoided in order to be able to
prevent creating sharp edged grid cells. An example is shown in the Figure 21. It can be seen
that the air casing’s geometry is cut exactly through the middle of the damp holes so that the
angle between a circular outline of an opening and cut line is 90°. This theoretically means
that when meshing with unstructured tetrahedral mesh the angle of a tetrahedral (or a triangle
on a surface mesh) is about 90° depending on the mesh density in that region. On the other
hand if the geometry had been cut like the cutting line b) in the Figure 21 suggests then the
cells in that area would have been sharp cornered.
Figure 21: Cutting the geometry through the air casings damp holes
Those cells are generally of bad quality and can greatly reduce performance of the flow
solver. The new geometry was then firstly the basis for the reference computational mesh
creation. Let us call the reference mesh the “SIT mesh”. The SIT mesh was created according
to established meshing parameters and is considered as a “trustworthy” mesh so that other test
meshes can be compared against it. For all generated meshes in this work the mesh quality
was assessed with a general ICEM CFD quality where the lowest limit was 0.3 which in all
cases resulted in only a few elements having the lowest value. Each generated mesh was
smoothed even further to maximize the number of high quality elements.
Besides 90° sector model of the burner a 30° sector model was also created. The idea was to
test the performance and accuracy of the 30° sector periodic model where additional
assumptions were needed to take in account. This approach would greatly reduce computation
time. However, as even the 90° sector model is still relatively computationally expensive and
since no reliable steady state solution was found, most of the calculations were done using the
30° sector model. The 90° sector model was then used merely as a reference to validate the
30° sector model.
-30-
3.2 Models and solution methods
Material used in all simulations in this work was Methane Air Mixture which originally
consists of CH4, O2, N2, CO2, H2O but as no combustion was modeled the last two
components were of course not included in the simulations. Species modeling was performed
by Species Transport equations and density was modeled using the ideal gas assumption.
Throughout the whole thesis work only the SST turbulence model was used.
As already mentioned the pressure based solver option was used for all cases however for
simulating the 3rd generation DLE burner the coupled solver was more stable and time
effective while for simulating the 4th generation DLE burner the segregated solver was
slightly more efficient. For all runs the default 2nd order upwind spatial discretization method
was chosen and 1st order implicit transient formulation was employed for the time dependent
simulations. 1st order accuracy was chosen as in this project the point of interest was not
transient behavior but average value and therefore diffusive property of this scheme was taken
advantage of.
3.2.1 Monitoring convergence progress

It is often of engineering interest to obtain steady state RANS solution and so it is also in this
study. Steady state solutions give a good picture of the reality needed in industry and are at
the same time very cost effective therefore a lot of effort was put into attempt to acquire a
steady state solution. However, as already mentioned it is not always possible for some cases
to converge to the final steady state solution due to physical or numerical unsteady behaviour.
This unsteady behaviour results in oscillation of the solution field in the computational
domain during convergence process. Oscillations are often of a local nature therefore a
solution may still be valid in the stable parts of the domain. In fact even the unstable part is
not necessarily incorrect. A legally unconverged solution may be used in some cases as a
“snapshot” which can be treated as one of many possible solutions.
3.2.1.1 Steady state runs

To track the oscillations of velocity and methane mass fraction during convergence process a
number of monitor points were allocated to specific parts of the domain. The idea was to keep
the steady state convergence process until the oscillations statistically stabilize. If the
oscillations are less than the differences of a monitored quantity obtained from computing
using different meshes then the steady state solution may be valid even for mesh convergence
study.
To be able to grasp a trend from the oscillations and thereby to tell if the monitored values
have statistically stabilized the oscillations have to be “smoothed” somehow. There exist
many methods for reducing the effect of variation. In industry and financial calculations an
often used technique is using moving average or sometimes called running average. This
technique reveals more clearly the underlying trend of a variating value. There are also a
number of different types of moving averages, in this work a Modified Moving Average
(MMA) or smoothed running average is used. MMA is technically a special case of
Exponential Moving Average (EMA) written as: [28] [29]
1 ∙ ∙ 3.1
MMA is a type of EMA when the smoothing constant is equal to 1/ therefore after
reordering of the expression (3.1) we get
1
∙ ∙ 1 3.2
-31-
where is current moving average value is previous moving average value and
is current original value. On the basis of the equation (3.2) a simple MATLAB script was
written in order to calculate the trends in the oscillations. The code can be found in Appendix.
The Figure 22 shows two examples of MMA application. It shows comparison of velocity
evolution in two different points when running a steady state case with three different meshes.
The three meshes have 0.55, 4.3 and 35 million volume cells respectively (details about this
approach are explained in one of the next sections). The left graph shows the desired situation.
The oscillations are less than the (average) differences in velocity which means that
comparison of the results is possible when taking in account deviation from the mean values.
However, that was not the case for all points in the domain. The graph on the right side of the
Figure 22 shows that in one point the oscillations are larger than the average differences in
velocity.
Figure 22: Normalized velocity in two different monitor points
In this case the steady state solutions could still be useful if the frequency of the oscillations
was the same or with other words if the oscillations were in phase. This way a “snapshot” of
the steady state solution would still be valid for comparison. This was, however, not the case
which is already obvious in the Figure 22.
After many other tests i.e. testing different numerical schemes, changing Courant number,
adjusting under-relaxation factors, even removing part of the geometry which is not of
essential importance for air/fuel mixing simulation (air casing) no stable steady state solution
was found. The last resort was therefore to employ time consuming transient runs with
transient statistics sampling.
3.2.1.2 Transient runs with transient statistics

When sampling statistical data during time dependent simulation one is interested in
arithmetic average of the solution field. Sampling data occur every time step and this gives
rise to an important question: For what amount of physical time should the simulation be run
to collect enough data to sufficiently describe the average values? Established rule of thumb is
that a fluid particle should flow from inlet to the outlet (a so called “flow-through”) of the
domain 5 to 10 times. This can be called a “flow-through” and so we can define a “flow-
through time” which can be estimated simply as [2]
̅∙
3.3
where ̅ is average density of a fluid in a domain through which a fluid flows, is the total
mass flow and is total volume of a domain. Another approach to estimate the flow-through
time is to use limits function for streamlines in CFX Post software. Both approaches give
similar results, however, it is worth to mention that some fluid particles may theoretically
-32-
never leave the domain due to a recirculating zone created for example by a highly swirling
flow. [2]
For the 3rd generation DLE burner operating in the ignition phase the estimated flow-through
time through the whole burner was long. For the 4th generation DLE burner it was shorter but
still too long to achieve required number of flow-throughs with available computer resources.
As the maximum time step size to get reliable transient formulation was between 5·10-5 and
10-5 s that would mean that we need to run the simulations for between 50,000 and 100,000
time steps or even more. This in reality means very long solution times and that is when
taking in account available computer resources and number of grid cells unfeasible. Despite
the existence of considerable limitations it is still possible to get acceptable time averaged
results with smaller sample size. In industry it is often used only 1 to 2 flow-throughs.
Moving average of values in monitor points gives us information about the trends during
transient solution process and if we notice a static trend in oscillations we can eventually
decide to stop the simulation even earlier. However, caution has to be taken when analysing
results with small sample size. [2]
3.3 Computational mesh optimization

Due to complex geometry of the 4th generation DLE burner the meshing process is rather time
consuming even when meshing with tetrahedral mesh if a computational mesh of a good
quality is desired. Grid generation was performed exclusively in Ansys ICEM CFD.
However, when geometry as a basis for the grid generation is complex the grid generation
algorithm creates many cells of bad quality that have to be manually corrected. This process
has to be carried out for each grid generation and can be very time consuming especially
when coarse grids are desired.
To avoid that to some degree Ansys Fluent offers a powerful Grid Adaption tool which can
refine and in some cases coarsen a mesh. That can be done manually or even automatically.
For details about mesh adaption tool please refer to Ansys Documentation [16]. Mesh
adaption is carried out by splitting grid cells. A disadvantage of splitting tetrahedrons is that
in order to split a tetrahedron into more tetrahedrons the only way is to split one tetrahedron
into eight new tetrahedrons like shown in the Figure 23.
Figure 23: Splitting a tetrahedron [30]
This results in a drastic increase in grid cell count when splitting the whole domain but the
advantage is that creating a new mesh is a matter of seconds while creating a new mesh in
ICEM CFD can take one whole working day. Another advantage is also that the changed
mesh has identical configuration, however, care has to be taken when dealing with surface
mesh. It is not possible to “smooth” the surface mesh, i.e. rounded surfaces have edged
appearance in a coarse mesh, or with other words – new surface grid nodes cannot attach to
surface geometry. After splitting all cells the surfaces will remain identical where the
difference will be only that every edge will then have more cells and this can consequently
affect flow field. If we take for example 2D flow past a cylinder: In a coarse mesh the
cylinder can be described as i.e. octagon. While that can be a good approximation for a flow
past a cylinder it may not be after splitting the cells as now the simulated flow is actually a
-33-
flow past an octagon. The Mesh Adaption tool offers also a Region Adaption tool which was
exploited in this work as well. It is possible to split grid cells in an arbitrary region within
domain where limitation is that available shapes of regions are limited to spherical, hexagonal
and cylindrical shapes.
3.4 Representation of results

Please note that due to the company’s secret policy the exact solutions are confidential
therefore all results and geometrical measures are provided in non-dimensional form. The
output data was normalized with reference values as follows:
GEOMETRICAL FEATURES
The geometrical features of the SGT-800 burner are normalized with the inner radius of the
mixing tube while the geometrical features of the SGT-750 are normalized with the inner
radius of the main combustion chamber.
CELL SIZES
Cell sizes in different parts of the mesh were presented with non-dimensional measure where
the reference size 1 is the cell size inside the RPL burner in the reference mesh (the SIT4.2M).
VELOCITY VALUES
The velocity data is in the case of SGT-800 combustor normalized with the average velocity
magnitude inside the burner while in the case of SGT-750 the velocity data is normalized with
velocity which is analytically calculated according to expression below:
3.4
̅
where is the sum of the mass flow (air and gas) defined as inlet boundary conditions, ̅ is
average density of the mixture at operating pressure and temperature in the combustion
chamber, and is cross-sectional area of the combustion chamber.
SIMULATION TIME
The simulation time is normalized with estimated flow-through time for each burner which is
essentially equal to the number of flow-throughs.
MASS FLOW
The mass flow values are normalized with the mass flow through the Main 2 passage of the
main burner.
-34-
4 A SHORT STUDY OF THE 3RD GENERATION DLE
BURNER
This chapter may be considered as a pre-study of the methodology used in this thesis work.
This sub-project was a short introduction into modelling air/fuel mixing in a combustion
chamber but it nevertheless gave valuable insight about the differences in results when using
different simulation software, in this case Ansys CFX and Fluent. Ansys CFX is almost
exclusively used to simulate all categories of flows related to gas turbines at Siemens.
However, point of interest here was to compare the results obtained from both solvers, when
simulating fuel/air mixing in the 3rd generation DLE burner in a specific phase of the burner
operation. J. Sjölander namely simulated fuel/air mixing in his master thesis work [27] when
the burner is in the ignition phase. Main objectives of his work were to employ, evaluate and
validate prediction methodologies for ignition limits applicable to gas turbine conditions with
help of cost effective CFD simulations. This special case was studied using CFD for the first
time and therefore it may be interesting to compare the results from both solvers. Both
simulations performed with Ansys CFX and mesh generation for this burner were
accomplished by J. Sjölander. [27]
4.1 Geometrical model

A picture of the simulated burner can be seen in the Figure 13 or in the Figure 12 where the
turbine is also visible. The geometrical model for this particular case is a periodic 90° sector
shown in the Figure 24 where air casing and the combustion chamber is included as the
burner is fitted to Siemens single burner atmospheric combustion test rig in Finspång.
Air inlet
Ignition point
Pressure outlet
Pilot fuel injection
Figure 24: Geometrical model of the 3rd generation DLE burner computational domain
4.2 Computational mesh

In the Figure 25 are shown the original and splitted surface meshes for the 90° sector of the
3rd generation DLE burner. The original mesh consists of 2.8 million grid cells while the fine
mesh with splitted cells, consists of 22.7 million cells. Let us name the two meshes 2.8M and
22.7M respectively. Note that the whole mesh consists of tetrahedrons only which means for
example that there is no prism elements to resolve boundary layers. Inflation layers would
greatly increase the cell count therefore it is usually avoided. Resolving the boundary layer
does not contribute considerably to the needed accuracy for general simulations but it is
important when interest is focused to heat transfer. Boundary layer has to be properly resolved
-35-
when simulating heat transfer through walls therefore the inflation layer is usually created
only on the walls where heat transfer is taken into account. However, as cell sizes near the
walls are relatively small the y+ values for those simulations are not very large. Despite no
inflation layer used the maximum y+ value is equal to 130.
2.8M
22.7M
Figure 25: Comparison of the original and splitted surface computational mesh
4.3 Boundary conditions and solution methods

The 3rd generation DLE burner’s fuel system consists of three independent injection systems:
central, main and pilot (for details please refer to Figure 13 on page 10). As their names imply
the central fuel is injected in the central point of the swirl cone and it represents the very
beginning of the flow through the burner. The central fuel enters the swirl cone of the burner
already partially premixed and if we move slightly downstream, the main fuel is injected
directly into the burner through a series of injection holes that are built-in to the swirler blades
where it mixes with the air coming from air casing. The pilot fuel is injected through a
circular array of injectors positioned on the external side of the burner’s end part so that the
pilot fuel is actually injected directly into the combustion chamber.
During normal operation of the turbine the total mass flow of the fuel is suitably divided to
the three injection sub-systems but at the ignition stage all of the fuel mass flow is directed to
the pilot fuel injectors. Prescribed boundary conditions are thus:
 Flow boundary conditions:
 Air inlet: mass flow inlet
 Pilot gas: inlet (methane): mass flow inlet
 Outflow: pressure outlet
 All temperatures set to constant room temperature (inlet air and fuel)
 Adiabatic physical walls
 Rotationally periodic sides
 Atmospheric pressure
As a unique steady state solution could not be found transient runs with time statistics
sampling were employed with fixed time step size of 10-5s for the case with the refined mesh
-36-
and for the case with the original mesh it could be safely increased to 5·10-5s although the
maximum Courant number in a small area of high-speed flow coming from the pilot nozzle
was equal to 300. Maximum Courant number in that area for the case with the fine mesh was
on the other hand equal to 120. The implicit transient formulation is unconditionally stable for
any time step size but excessively large time step size may affect calculation accuracy. The
upper limit is otherwise case dependent therefore caution has to be taken when increasing the
time step size. However, a brief time step size study has shown that such large maximum
Courant number for this calculation does not affect simulation accuracy. Furthermore, areas
of high Courant numbers were limited to a small portion of the domain consisting of only a
few grid cells whereas in the majority of the domain the Courant number was significantly
smaller. The Courant number was smaller by order of magnitude in low flow speed areas and
approximately 5 times smaller in relatively high speed swirling flow in the burner. Employing
a large time step size without compromising the accuracy of the calculation allowed
significant reduction of calculation time. [17]
The convergence criterion for each time step was set to 10-4 of scaled residual which resulted
in approximately 13 needed iterations per time step. Convergence was more stable and
slightly more time effective with employing the coupled solver probably due to a stronger
coupling between velocity and pressure in the high speed compressible pipe flow through the
pilot injector.
Figure 26: Monitor points locations for the 3rd generation DLE burner
Figure 27: Monitoring velocity in the Point 1, 3 and 5 and monitoring methane mass fraction in Point 1
-37-
For monitoring convergence 5 monitor points were used as shown in the Figure 26. For the
case with the original mesh (2.8 million cells) approximately 1.6 flow-throughs were achieved
while for the case with splitted cells (22.7 million cells) even that was not possible as
computational time would extremely long especially if considering much smaller time step
size for this case. Approximately 0.25 flow-throughs for the case with the refined mesh was
therefore achieved. Even though the physical simulation time was short some idea about the
tendency of the flow development can be extracted from studying the moving average of the
velocity in the monitor points. The Figure 27 shows velocity development progress for both
meshes in the three most important monitor points and also methane mass fraction progress in
Point 1 which is in fact the ignition point and hence the most important point in this study.
As seen in the Figure 27 the moving average of velocity and methane mass fraction
oscillations show stable tendency in Points 1 and 3 when considering the results from the
original mesh. The moving average also reveals that sampling size for transient statistics is
sufficient in those two points. However, this is not entirely true for the Point 5 which is
located in the air casing where air velocity is relatively low with large low frequency
oscillations. For a better time average representation of the velocity in the Point 5 the transient
simulation would have been needed to be run for additional number of time steps. However,
for engineering practice in industry the collected transient data is sufficient.
The case with refined mesh should have been run for a considerable number of additional
time steps but that was computationally too expensive and therefore unfeasible. However, the
data from monitor points and their moving averages show that the averaged values may still
be valid for comparison as the moving average shows a clear tendency of the oscillations.
Furthermore, from the Figure 27 we can conclude that the sampling size represents a
minimum to collect useful time averaged values for comparison. The data from the points 1
and 3 obtained from the original mesh namely show that the simulation time with the refined
mesh is sufficient assuming that a similar simulation time as with the original mesh is needed
to collect a reasonable average value.
-38-
4.4 Results
Figure 28 and Figure 30 below show results of the computed time averaged velocity field
when using both computational meshes. The cutting plane on which the velocity field is
illustrated is located so that the plane cuts the model exactly through the center of the pilot
injector (Plane 1 in the Figure 29) which is approximately in the midsection of the 90° sector
model. In Figure 28 there are also marked the lines along which the velocity results are later
evaluated more in detail. There was an additional line created (Line 1a on the Plane 2) as the
Plane 1 does not cut through one of the air inlet openings in the air casing in order to be able
to correctly study the jet formed by the inlet opening.
2.8M - Fluent
Line 1 Line 1a Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Line 5
22.7M - Fluent
Figure 28: Comparison of the time averaged velocity field results between the two meshes on the Plane 1
Plane 1 Plane 2
Line 1a
Figure 29: The planes on which the evaluation lines can be seen
The result of velocity distribution along the marked lines is presented in continuation (Figure
34 on page 43) where all results are combined (results from both solvers and all meshes) for
better comparison. Although the difference in cell count between the two meshes is
considerable the obtained results of velocity are obviously very similar. Note that in the
Figure 30 the velocity scale in the legend does not represent all velocity scales in the shown
velocity field. The legend is optimized so that the highest velocities (red spectrum)
correspond to velocity in the center of the burner. The reason is that in the ignition stage of
the combustor operation, when all gas mass flow is directed to the pilot injection system, the
flow through the pilot nozzles reaches choked flow conditions. The flow speed through the
pilot nozzles thus reaches speed of the sound. Velocity through the pilot nozzles is therefore
very high as speed of the sound in methane at atmospheric conditions is 446 m/s. [31]
-39-
2.8M - Fluent
22.7M - Fluent
Figure 30: Comparison of the time averaged velocity field results between the two meshes
The evaluation of the results along the lines is presented in continuation where all the results
are collected in order to be able to more graphically illustrate the differences between the
meshes and the different solvers used. Because all results of the velocity field are very similar
near the outlet and because velocity field in the air casing is not of essential importance are all
the figures showing flow details only in the burner and in the front part of the combustion
chamber - in the same manner as in the Figure 30.
Let us take a closer look how the velocity field results differ when using different solvers.
Both computations were performed on identical computational mesh with identical boundary
conditions and flow models. Both transient calculations were also run for enough time to
obtain sufficiently large sampling size for time averaged velocity field. Surprisingly there are
some distinctive features that distinguish the obtained results from both solvers despite
identical settings. The most obvious one is the position of the stagnation point. According to
the results obtained from Fluent solver the stagnation point should lie approximately on the
same plane as the outlet opening from the burner. Results obtained from CFX solver predict
position of the stagnation point moved for 0.8 non-dimensional units downstream . Fluent
solver actually predicts the stagnation point position to be inside the burner while CFX solver
predicts the stagnation point to be well inside the combustion chamber.
Line 3 Line 4 Line 5 2.8M - Fluent
Line 2
Stagnation point
2.8M - CFX
Figure 31: Comparison of the predicted velocity field between Fluent and CFX
-40-
It is hard to conclude which prediction is closer to reality as no experimental measurements
were made for this particular feature. One explanation could be in the different finite volume
method techniques employed by both solvers as briefly summarized in the section 2.5 on the
page 22. The Figure 30 also suggests that the difference occurs due to the discretization error.
A closer look at the position of the stagnation point reveals that the calculation with Fluent
using the refined mesh predicts the stagnation point to be located slightly more towards the
interior of the burner. The difference is about 0.19 non-dimensional units, but for such a
relatively small difference it is too optimistic to state that this absolutely holds as the time
average sampling size is small for the calculation using the fine mesh.
Another explanation for the difference can be due to a slightly different SST turbulence
models behaviour in both solvers as discussed in chapter 2.3.1.1.3 on page 18. As seen in the
Figure 32 the predicted turbulence kinetic energy is significantly higher than the prediction
obtained by Fluent. Note that the legend does not include all the values as the turbulence
kinetic energy in the jet coming from the pilot nozzle is much higher than in other parts of the
illustrated turbulence kinetic energy field.
2.8M - Fluent
2.8M - CFX
Figure 32: Comparison of the predicted turbulence kinetic energy distribution between Fluent and CFX
The difference in obtained turbulence eddy dissipation is also in the same order as the
difference in turbulence kinetic energy, while the results of turbulent eddy frequency do not
differ much. It is hard to speculate which factor in turbulence modelling contributes to so
significant differences in turbulence modelling in both solvers. There may be some additional
differences besides different threating of the standard model coefficients i.e. differences in
behaviour of blending function or limiter functions. However, the turbulence model study is
not the scope of this thesis but it is an interesting feature that can be challenged for further
study.
For this simulation there was no refined computational mesh available for the calculations
using CFX solver that would be identical to the refined mesh used with Fluent (22.7M). J.
Sjölander has used a fine mesh with 15 million elements which has cell count approximately
in a similar order as the one used in Fluent. The results obtained from CFX calculations with
15 million cells (let us name it 15M) can be assumed as a valid comparison to the calculations
obtained from Fluent with 22.7M mesh. The following figures are thus showing collected
information about the four simulations. We start with comparison of time averaged
equivalence ratio in the Figure 33.
-41-
2.8M - Fluent 22.7M - Fluent
Line 3
2.8M - CFX 15M - CFX
Figure 33: Time averaged equivalence ratio distribution for all four cases
There are differences in predicted time averaged equivalence ratio when applying both
solvers. Part of the explanation may be that Fluent predicts slightly higher values of turbulent
viscosity in the region of swirling flow. Mass diffusion in turbulent flow is namely directly
dependent on turbulent viscosity as shown in the Equation (2.42) on page 21. Another, more
possible, explanation may be associated with the discretization error. Species transport
equations are relatively sensitive to grid resolution which will be shown more clearly in the
next section of this thesis. As it is obvious from the Figure 33 the results obtained from Fluent
solver do not differ a lot even though the fine mesh has approximately eight times the number
of grid cells. However, results obtained from Ansys CFX show larger discrepancies. Note that
the fine mesh used in CFX calculations is not eight times more refined but approximately five
times and despite that the differences are more noticeable. This roughly suggests that the CFX
solver is more sensitive to grid resolution especially when solving species transport equation.
Explanation can be in the type of finite volume discretization employed by CFX. This is
briefly discussed in chapter 2.5.1.1 on page 23 where the fundamental differences between
different discretization techniques are explained. While the cell-centered discretization
approach has the ratio of control volumes and vertices equal to one, has the vertex-centered
approach only about 1/5 to 1/6. This may contribute to stronger grid resolution sensitivity for
the CFX solver.
Similar tendency show results of velocity distribution along the marked evaluation lines,
though not so noticeable as the values of equivalence ratio. However, all graphs in the Figure
34 show this tendency except in the case of the velocity distribution along the Line 2 where
the results from different meshes using the CFX solver are nearly identical and where the
results obtained from Fluent differ to a relatively large degree. This is obvious also in the
Figure 30 which shows that the velocity inside the burner according to results obtained from
the finer mesh is generally higher than that obtained from the original mesh. As this is the
only part of the computational domain where mesh sensitivity of the Fluent calculations is
evident, the explanation may be insufficient sample size for calculating time averaged
velocity for the case with the fine mesh. To confirm that a monitor point monitoring velocity
inside the burner would be needed.
-42-
Line 1&1a Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Line 5
Figure 34: Time averaged velocity distribution along the lines for all cases
The last figure in this section shows distribution of (time averaged) equivalence ratio ϕ on the
cross sectional plane with longitudinal coordinate equal to the position of the ignition point.
This area was of the greatest interest in the work of J. Sjölander. Furthermore a volume
averaged equivalence ratio in a sphere with radius 5mm is shown in the Figure 35. This figure
shows mentioned differences as well.
ϕ 0.45 ϕ 0.48
Ignition point
2.8M - Fluent 22.7M - Fluent
ϕ 0.41 ϕ 0.34
2.8M - CFX 15M - CFX
Figure 35: Time averaged equivalence ratio ϕ distribution and volume averaged ϕ in a sphere with radius 5mm
located in the ignition point
-43-
4.5 Conclusion remarks for the short 3rd generation DLE burner
study
There exist both, differences in results between the solvers and the meshes used. There is an
obvious difference in equivalence ratio distribution results obtained from the different solvers
and they again suggest greater mesh sensitivity of CFX solver while differences between the
meshes used with Fluent solver show mesh sensitivity in a much lesser extent.
It is hard to draw any firm conclusions whether the statement that results obtained from
Fluent for this particular case are closer to reality and less mesh sensitive than the results
obtained from CFX. However, considering this short study with reference to the work of
G.Wang et al [22] (shortly reviewed in chapter 2.5.1.1, page 23) this might have some basis
for discussion. Besides different discretization technique employed in both solvers seems
even the same SST turbulence model used in all computations to be slightly more refined in
Fluent which might also contribute to more accurate results. A more extended and detailed
study of those properties may be encouraged to confirm this statement.
-44-
5 THE 4TH
GENERATION DLE BURNER
COMPUTATIONAL MESH OPTIMIZATION
As already mentioned an established meshing approach does exist for the new 4th generation
DLE burner though no more detailed mesh study had been done before this work. To create a
mesh for the basic full 360° geometry of the burner it is needed from 40 to up to 75 million
grid cells. The basic geometry refers to the burner with air casing and combustion chamber
without inlet casing which connects air inlet with other burners in the system of eight burners
installed in the SGT-750 gas turbine. Such amount of grid cells is computationally extremelly
expensive especially if transient data is needed. Due to perfect axial symmetry of the burner
some studies were performed using a rotational symmetric 90° sector model. Asymmetry of
the flow in the burner does exist as visible in the work of D.G. Barhagi et al. [32] but those
minor deviations are not of essential importance for general aerodynamic or gas/air mixing
simulations. Those differences are, however, more noticeable in the air casing of the burner
but they almost completely vanish when the flow becomes swirling. With use of 90° sector
model it is therefore possible either to reduce computational time by approximately 4 times or
to use 4 times more grid cells in the simulation to be able to resolve the general flow
characteristics more in detail at the same computational costs. This mainly holds when using
the general two equation turbulence models like k-ε or SST for example. When employing
more advanced turbulence models like LES or SAS it is always better to use a full 360° model
even in swirling flow areas. One reason is that those sophisticated turbulence models resolve
turbulence scales in much greater detail and because turbulence as such is a three-dimensional
occurrence a rotationally symmetric sector model would excessively restrict the degrees of
freedom to properly describe behaviour of turbulent structures in the flow. [20]
A good opportunity to use rotational symmetric models is also when investigating mesh
dependency of a numerical model. In this work 9 meshes were created but with help of Fluent
region adaption function this number goes to a total of 17 different meshes. Using those
meshes totally 56 cases were run (29 steady state and 17 transient cases). This could not be
possible without employing rotational symmetric models. Certainly not all meshes or all cases
were successful. Also all runs were not studied in detail and will therefore not be discussed
here but they helped as a support for understanding of the flow behaviour when applying
different meshes or different solution methods.
Two rotationally symmetric (or periodic) geometrical models were created in this study. As a
reference a full 360° mesh was used that consisted of 56 million grid cells together with air
inlet casing. Based on configuration of this mesh a new symmetric 90° sector mesh was
created which reduced the number of grid cells to 12.1 million. As this is still relatively large
number a 30° sector mesh of similar configuration was created for the main runs intended for
the mesh optimization. The grid cell count was so further reduced to 4.2 million which is now
a reasonable number with respect to available computer resources. As already mentioned the
90° sector model was then used merely for validating the 30° sector model.
5.1 Geometrical model

All details of the geometry may unfortunately not be shown in this work due to
confidentiality. If the following figures of the geometry might seem to appear distorted, that
has been done intentionally. However some details of the geometry in the burner (i.e. position
of the pilot and the RPL burner) may be seen in the Figure 15 on page 11. The given full 360°
solid CAD (parasolid) model was already inverted by a CAD design engineer so that empty
space was converted into a solid which can then be used as a fluid volume while the original
-45-
solid parts were removed. The so called “air model” was then only needed to be cut to get the
30° and 90° sectors which is not an easy task if a computational mesh generation of high
quality is desired. As already explained in the chapter 3.1 on page 30 any specialties in the
geometry need to be cut so that eventual sharp corners can be avoided. Typical examples are
many circular openings in the geometry that must be cut through the middle point. The
problem here is that not all centers of the openings lie on the same plane therefore different
parts of the geometry had to be cut on different planes. Cutting planes had to be rotated for a
specific angle to cut a part of the geometric model so that eventual openings are cut exactly
through the center on both sides. At the same time angle between pairs of planes had to be
maintained by either 30 or 90 degrees.
The 90° sector model was cut exclusively using software Ansys Design Modeler which
provides user friendly environment to work with solids. The full geometry was thus cut so
that the periodic sides of the model lie on three different flat planes and one curved plane, see
Figure 36. The pilot burner consists of an even number of swirl blades that are positioned at a
certain angle looking from upstream direction of incoming flow. Because the space between
consecutive blades is small the only option is to cut the swirler between two blades with a
plane that follows the shape of the blade. This resulted in curved surfaces on both sides of the
pilot that contain ¼ number of the swirler blades and they must be identical on both sides in
order to be able to apply rotational periodicity.
Figure 36: The geometric model of the 90° sector of the burner
For the 30° sector model some assumptions were needed to take into account. Some specific
geometrical features like the number of fuel injection pipes for the RPL burner, air feeding
lines for the RPL and number of swirler blades in the pilot are not multiplications of 12. It
was therefore not possible to create a perfectly correct geometrical representation of the full
360° model with a periodic 30° sector. Solution is to simply assume a different number of
those geometrical features so that they are a multiplication of 12. This has a certain effect on
flow characteristics of the RPL and pilot which will be shown in continuation but this,
however, does not play an important role for a mesh independence study.
Cutting a 30° portion of the full model was significantly more difficult task comparing to the
90° sector therefore a combination of two software was used to accomplish that. The majority
of the geometry was cut with Ansys Design Modeler as it is significantly simpler to cut solid
CAD models. The model had to be cut on 5 flat planes and 2 curved planes at different angles
so the Ansys Design Modeler was used to cut on 6 out of 7 planes as it offers also a simple
angle measurement tool. The last curved plane which represents the periodic side enclosing
the pilot’s swirler blade had to be created in ICEM (see “Pilot burner” in the Figure 37).
When a solid CAD model is imported into ICEM CFD it is automatically converted to a
-46-
surface model as ICEM is a surface based design modeller. It offers powerful tools to work
with surfaces therefore the software’s advantages have been exploited to design two identical
surfaces that are highly curved in all three dimensions in order to tightly enclose the curved
swirler blade.
RPL cooler
RPL burner Pilot burner
Figure 37: The geometric model of the 30° sector of the burner
The choice of cutting planes to cut the geometry of the Pilot and RPL burner was dictated by
the RPL air feeding lines and the curvature of the pilot’s swirler blades. The optimal choice
was thus to “rotate” the 30° slice of the RPL for 30° to one direction and the Pilot burner slice
had to be cut rotationally to the opposite direction for as much as 90°. Both ends of these two
small devices need to come together at a certain point hence a rather complicated geometric
configuration in that part of the geometry.
5.2 Boundary conditions and time step size

Defining specific boundary conditions for a mesh study is not of essential importance but it is
anyway advisory to use typical boundary conditions that computations are going to be used
with in future calculations. Typical values for the burner during normal operation were
therefore used. All inlet boundary conditions were defined using uniform mass flow in the
normal direction of the boundary condition. Positions of the boundary conditions can be seen
in the Figure 38.
Main 1 gas Main 2 gas
Pressure outlet
Air inlet
RPL gas
Pilot gas
Figure 38: Boundary conditions
Dimensionless mass flow values (normalized with the mass flow rate through the Main 2
passage) for each boundary condition together with other prescriptions are collected in the
Table 2. The table shows boundary conditions used for all cases including different values for
90° and 30° sector model. The only difference is that in the simulations used for comparison
of the results between the 90° and the 30° sector model different air inlet temperature was
defined. Comparison of the two models was a preliminary study where all incoming fluid
-47-
temperatures were set to a room temperature. Later, when calculations were run for the mesh
study and the mesh optimization, the inlet air temperature was set to a typical temperature of
incoming air to the burner during normal operation. There are certain differences in the results
when applying different inlet air temperatures but tests have shown that the flow behaviour
remains almost identical and does not affect the validation of the 30° sector model.
Preliminary calculations were therefore sufficient and no additional calculations were needed.
Table 2: Boundary conditions for all runs
B.C. B.C. type

Air inlet Mass flow inlet (air)
Main 1 gas Mass flow inlet (methane)
Main 2 gas Mass flow inlet (methane)
Pilot gas Mass flow inlet (methane)
RPL gas Mass flow inlet (methane)
Outlet Pressure outlet - Relative pressure = 0 Pa

Pressure High (operating) pressure
Turbulence 10% turb. intensity and 1/20 length scale
Walls Adiabatic, no slip condition
There is only one outlet boundary condition defined as the pressure outlet with zero relative
pressure. In case of backflow at the outlet air with room temperature was used as the backflow
material. Operating pressure was set to a typical value during a normal turbine operation with
reference pressure in the combustion chamber center. For all inlet boundary conditions the
turbulence was defined using 10% turbulence intensity where turbulent length scale was set to
1/20 of the geometric length scale of the belonging boundary condition surface. All physical
walls have no slip condition defined and as heat transfer was not studied in this work those
walls were defined as adiabatic. Because in this work we are not dealing with a full geometric
model the sides of each model have to be defined as periodic boundary conditions. As the
domain is rotationally periodic all side wall pairs were defined as rotationally periodic
boundaries.
Fixed time step size used for this study was 10-5s. It was chosen according to established and
tested transient simulation approaches for this burner. A brief time step size study suggested
that it could be slightly increased but as no firm conclusions could be made due to long
calculation times the time step size was not changed. Corresponding maximal Courant
number for simulations calculated using meshes with cell sizes according to established
meshing approaches was 35. In continuation it will be presented a substantially refined mesh
for the 30° sector model consisting 35 million cells where corresponding maximal Courant
number was 103. As no influence of relatively large Courant number on simulation results
was detected the same time step size was used also for simulation using this mesh in order to
decrease calculation time.
5.3 The reference mesh

The first two meshes for both 30° and 90° sector models were created according to
established meshing approaches for this combustor at Siemens. In the Figure 39 the reference
mesh for the 30° sector model is shown which may be named as SIT4.2M as it contains 4.2
-48-
million elements. A very similar mesh was created for the 90° sector model that has 12.1
million elements. For both reference meshes even inflation layer was created at the walls
where heat transfer calculations might be performed. As already explained, a properly
resolved boundary layer is critically needed only when heat transfer through the walls is a
point of interest. The SIT4.2M mesh therefore consists of 3.9 million tetrahedral and 0.3
million prism elements in 5 layers.
Figure 39: The reference computational mesh for the 30° sector model (SIT4.2M). The inflation layer is marked
with the red line.
5.4 Validation of the 30° sector model

In this chapter similarities and differences between the results when applying 90° and 30°
sector model will be presented as for the main mesh optimization study the latter will be used.
5.4.1 Monitor points data - 30° versus 90° sector model

Positions of monitor points for monitoring oscillations of velocity magnitude and methane
mass fraction during time dependent calculations can be seen in the Figure 40. In all 10 points
the velocity magnitude was monitored while in the Points 8 and 10 also methane mass
fraction was monitored which makes 12 data points. Results from all data points are not
shown here but only the most important which reveal typical oscillations in different parts of
the domains. Those points are shaded with red colour in the Figure 40. The monitor points for
both sector models were positioned so that they lie on the same plane at a tangential angle
adjusted so that in both models the points capture the same area of interest. This way
comparison between two different geometrical models is valid.
Figure 40: Positions of the monitor points used for validating the 30° sector model (data obtained from the points
shaded with red color can be seen in the Figure 41)
In the Figure 41 the results obtained from the chosen monitor points can be seen. The graphs
showing the oscillations and the moving averages of the oscillations in the Figure 41 are
representative for all monitor points since behavior in remaining points which are not shown
here is very similar. From all shown points, except the Point 3, we can conclude that for both
-49-
cases time averaging was sufficient even though simulations were run only for a portion of
flow-through time.
Approximately 0.25 and 0.5 flow-throughs were reached for the 90° and 30° sector model
simulation respectively. In most points the behavior of oscillations, their moving averages and
differences between average values were very similar to that in the Point 2 in the Figure 41.
Monitor point 3 shows, however, very different behavior. In the area around the Point 3 there
are similar flow conditions as around the Point 5 in the case of 3rd generation DLE burner
which is covered in chapter 4.3 on page 36. In vicinity of this point there is also an area of
low air velocity with large low frequency oscillations that can be either of physical or
numerical origin. Time average is therefore not sufficient in this portion of the domain but, as
it will be shown later, those instabilities do not influence the flow downstream. Furthermore,
because this portion of the domain does not play a very important role for air/gas mixing
simulation in this work, more extensive time averaging was not needed.
Figure 41: Monitoring velocity and methane mass fraction in the chosen points
The Point 5 shows very well sampled time average in that area for the 30° sector model while
for the 90° sector model the simulation should have been left run for a longer time to get a
similar quality of time average but it is nevertheless sufficient as the tendency is clear. The
difference between the average values is on the other hand quite large in the area,
approximately 6%. This is the consequence of different pilot and RPL geometry in both
models discussed earlier in the section 5.1. The details about changed flow conditions will be
shown in continuation. Results of methane mass fraction obtained from the Monitor point 8
might not seem sufficient for a good time average but the differences between the values are
negligible and the same holds also for the velocity in the Point 8 where the difference between
average values are only 1%. There is slightly larger difference between average values
obtained from the Point 9 but it is, however, in the order of only 2%. According to all
monitored data and their moving averages it has been concluded that the sample size for time
average is sufficient for comparison between the 30° and 90° sector models.
-50-
5.4.2 Results – comparison between 30° and 90° sector model
Comparison of the results between two different sector models and all other cases in
continuation of this thesis work has been performed thoroughly with help of the evaluation
lines shown in the Figure 42. Some lines were furthermore moved if needed in order to track
any important changes in values of variables in axial or radial direction when vertical or
horizontal lines were used respectively. Variables investigated were for the most part time
averaged velocity magnitude, time averaged equivalence ratio and in some cases also
instantaneous values of those values. Note that results from all evaluation lines will not be
shown here but only the most important and representative for the whole domain.
Figure 42: Positions of the evaluation lines for all cases
The Figure 43 shows comparison of the time averaged velocity field between the models. For
more realistic visualisations of solution fields on the cutting planes the planes have been
reflected over the longitudinal axis as though if the full 360° model would have been
simulated. Obviously the velocity field in the combustion chamber, the Main 1 and Main 2
passages (areas of highly swirling flow where the air/gas mixing is taking place) is very
similar. Even in the area of low frequency oscillations (monitored with the Monitor point 3),
where time averaging was not sufficient, the flow field is very similar. This highly unstable
behaviour originates from “swinging” jets of air exiting the largest damp holes which then
enter the Main 2 passage. This area is marked in the Figure 43 where the jet is clearly visible.
At this point it is hard to conclude whether this instability is physically or numerically
induced.
30° sector
Area of low frequency oscillations
90° sector
Figure 43: Comparison of the time averaged velocity field between the 30° and 90° sector model
-51-
As shown with the Monitor point 3 the pattern of oscillations differ between the models. The
explanation may be that in the case of the 30° sector model there are fewer degrees of
freedom for the jet to swing in all directions and that there are only 1/3 the number of damp
holes so the interaction between respective jets is also different.
If we move from that area downstream towards RPL burner more noticeable differences in
velocity field emerge as the assumptions made in construction of the 30° sector model are
showing their effects. As already explained in the section discussing the geometry for the 30°
sector model a larger number of swirler blades in the pilot burner is assumed which results in
approximately 22% smaller effective flow area through the pilot. More restricted flow through
the pilot causes that air mass flow incoming to the pilot burner is about 16% lower. However,
this leads also to larger pressure drop and therefore for about 8% higher area averaged
velocity of the mixture on the plane directly downstream of the pilot exit. Another assumption
made was that the RPL burner in the 30° sector model has larger number of air inlet openings
which leads to lower resistance of air flow incoming to the RPL burner. Those two
assumptions furthermore result in about 28% higher air mass flow incoming to the RPL which
has as a consequence a much leaner air/gas mixture in the RPL burner in the case of the 30°
sector model as obvious from the Figure 44. Average value of equivalence ratio in the case of
the 90° sector model is equal to 2 while in the case of the 30° sector model it is equal to 1.7.
30° sector
90° sector
Figure 44: Comparison of the time averaged equivalence ratio field between the 30° and 90° sector model
Some differences in equivalence ratio distribution inside the Main1 and Main 2 passages may
also be noticed. The reason might be in insufficient sampling size to obtain a better time
average value in that area. Only a velocity progress during the calculation was monitored near
the exit of the Main 1 passage (Monitor point 1) but not equivalence ratio therefore it is hard
to conclude anything about the quality of time averaging of methane mass fraction in that
area. The importance of monitoring both velocity and equivalence ratio in many specific areas
of the domain has been shown in this model study. Many more monitor points were therefore
created for the simulations following in the next sections. However, distribution and average
values of equivalence ratio at the exit of the Main 1 and Main 2 passages are nearly the same
in both cases. Equivalence ratio distribution is namely most important specifically at the exit
of both passages because downstream near the exits a flame is being fed with this mixture
which is by then already well mixed in both model cases.
-52-
Line 1h Line 1 Line 4
Line 2h
Line 2 RPL
Figure 45: Comparison of the time averaged velocity and equivalence ratio between the models along the lines
which are illustrated in the combustor cross section view
The velocity and equivalence ratio distributions in the combustion chamber are otherwise
nearly identical which can be confirmed by the graphs in the Figure 45. The graphs show the
velocity and the equivalence ratio distribution along some chosen lines that represent how
both models compare to each other. Velocity distribution along the Line 1h shows
discrepancies due to insufficient time averaging in that area but the differences vanish almost
immediately after entering the Main 1 and Main 2 (the Line 2h) passages where the air
velocity increases. Velocity distribution along the Line 1 shows a small part of large
discrepancy between the models in the lower part of the graph. The lower part of the Line 1 is
positioned near the exit opening from the pilot burner and due to the assumptions made for
the 30° sector model the velocity is higher in that part of the burner as already explained.
Velocity distribution along the Line 2 RPL shows more clearly the consequence of the
assumptions made for the 30° sector model since the velocity in the RPL burner is clearly
higher. The graphs showing velocity and equivalence ratio along the Line 4, which is well
inside the combustion chamber, confirm that the differences between the models inside the
combustion chamber are negligible. We may finally conclude that the 30° sector model
describes flow properties very accurately taking in the account the assumptions that had to be
made.
-53-
5.5 The mesh optimization
This chapter deals with the main part of this work that has objective to improve meshing
approaches to better optimize accuracy of the results versus cell count for the 4th generation
burner. The 30° sector model has been validated therefore all calculations in the following
sections intended for the mesh study were performed using the smaller, much more time
effective model. For the runs presented in continuation all boundary conditions used were the
same except that the inlet air temperature was changed to a typical inlet air temperature during
normal turbine operation.
5.5.1 “The three meshes”

The basic idea of the approach to find regions of high/low mesh dependency is to create only
one very coarse mesh in order to be able to split all cells in the domain two times using the
mesh adaption tool in Fluent. This tool has been already introduced in the section 3.3 on the
page 33 with some of its advantages and dissadvantages. The target cell count for the coarse
mesh was 0.5 million cells which still gives after the second splitting a reasonable cell count
with respect to available computer resources.
The coarse mesh had to be created with caution especially when creating surface mesh on
rounded surfaces or in tight areas such as in the pilot burner between the swirler blades. As
already explained in the section 3.3 new surface grid nodes after splitting the cells do not
attach to surface geometry therefore all rounded surfaces were meshed so that they do not
have too sharp edges which could after splitting cells affect flow field. In the model there is
also a substantial number of pipe flows where diameters of pipes can be very small in
comparison with the combustion chamber external measures. Correct meshing of all the pipes
in the geometry would always exceed the goal cell count and on the other hand classical pipe
meshing with large surface elements can lead to a blockage in the flow. Cross-section of a
pipe meshed with large elements is no longer a circle but a poligon enclosed in a circle. The
effective area of this poligon is thereby smaller which leads to blocked flow in a pipe. To
overcome this limitation special measures were taken. Akram Soroush has shown in his
master thesis [39] that for 12 aligned nodes per 360° the blockage is approximatelly 5%, a
value that can be accepted in this work. Most of the pipes were therefore meshed so that they
have minimum 12 sides with aligned surface nodes as shown in the detail window in the
Figure 46.
Figure 46: The original generated mesh with 0.55 million cells – 0.55M mesh
With help of this approach a mesh with only 0.55 million elements (the 0.55M mesh) was
created. With the quick method of splitting all cells in Fluent using mesh adaption tool a new
mesh was created with 4.3 million elements (the 4.3M mesh) and furthermore with another
splitting a mesh with 35 million cells was created (the 35M mesh). However, no inflation
-54-
layer was created. In the air inlet passage of the pilot burner there were originally small
cooling ribs placed on the wall which were removed. Removing cooling ribs certainly affects
the flow field and especially changed mass flow through the pilot was a reason for concern
therefore a highest possible friction coefficient was defined on the corresponding wall. The
difference between the mass flow with and without cooling ribs was then after defining the
friction coefficient only approximately 3% which still allows comparison of the results using
the three meshes against the reference SIT4.2M mesh. Although the mesh generation
algorithm failed to create a high quality mesh on a number of areas in the geometry, which is
very common for a creation of a coarse mesh in a complicated geometry, a thorough manual
correction of the surface and volume elements resulted in desired ICEM CFD quality of
minimum 0.3. After splitting the cells the mesh quality naturally remains the same.
The domain has been divided into 9 subdomains with interfaces between them in order to be
able to conveniently measure the mass flow between different passages of the burner. It is
often a point of interest what is mass flow through i.e. the pilot burner, the RPL burner the
Main 1 and Main 2 passages etc. This is applicable also for a mesh study to detect any
dependency of mass flow through the passages on the cell count.
Besides “the three meshes” two main additional meshes were also used for the mesh study.
One of them is the reference mesh – SIT4.2M and the second one is an early proposal of a
slightly coarser mesh with a similar meshing approach as used in the reference mesh though
slightly larger cells were used so that the cell count for this mesh is 1.9 million. This mesh
may be called My1.9M. Thus for the mesh study mainly five different meshes were carefully
inspected. The meshes and normalized physical simulation time for corresponding calculation
are collected in the Table 3. Among the five meshes only the reference mesh includes the
inflation layer on specifically chosen walls. Values of y+ associated with the tested meshes are
therefore large and are in the areas of high velocity in the order of 1000.
Table 3: The main meshes for the mesh study and normalized physical simulation time (= number of flow-
throughs) of the time dependent runs with the corresponding mesh.
Mesh 0.55M 4.3M 35M My1.9M SIT4.2M
Physical time 0.52 0.61 0.28 0.38 0.36
ADDITIONAL MESHES
There was a number of additional meshes created and tested but the results using those
meshes were not of such significant importance as with the above five meshes. A mesh with 1
million elements was created and it allowed one splitting of cells which offered a new mesh
with around 8 million elements. Another version of the My1.9M mesh was also created with
the same configuration except that it included inflation layer at the walls as shown in the
Figure 39. This mesh was used to test importance of the inflation layer for general
aerodynamics and air/fuel mixing. Two additional versions of the 0.55M mesh where region
adaption tool in Fluent was used to refine only the RPL burner to test the mesh dependency of
the RPL burner and another where only the centerline of the combustion chamber was refined.
Studying those meshes in detail was abandoned as the five meshes in the Table 3 are the most
representative for all different areas in the domain.
5.5.2 Additional monitor points

Preliminary studies, including the validation of the 30° sector model, have shown the
importance of monitoring the solution process in many different areas of the domain therefore
8 new monitor points were created. All monitor points are thus monitoring also methane mass
-55-
fraction, where applicable, which makes totally 28 data points to be processed externally
using MATLAB software. Positions of all monitor points can be seen in the Figure 47.
Results of all data points are not shown here therefore only the most important and
representative points have been chosen to show the transient solution progress using different
meshes and they can be seen in the Figure 48.
Figure 47: Positions of the new monitor points
Most of the monitor points show behaviour similar to the graph describing velocity solution
progress in the Point 2. This the desired behaviour with clear tendencies from which it can be
concluded that a sufficient time average values have been obtained. Solution progress in some
areas, especially for the methane mass fraction values, was not completely satisfactory as for
example the Point 2 showing methane mass fraction solution progress seen in the Figure 48.
However, some information about the tendencies can be reported by the moving average and
the differences between moving averages are evidently small. Comparing moving averages
reveals that the difference between results using 0.55M and 4.3M is approximately 6% while
the difference between 4.3M and 35M under 1%.
As with all cases there is a problematic area in vicinity of the Point 3. Simulations using the
0.55M and the 4.3M mesh show some tendency (though there is 10% difference in MMA
between the meshes) while no clear tendency can be extracted for the simulation using the
35M mesh. However, this flow, characterized with large low frequency oscillations, always
stabilize immediately after entering the Main 1 and Main 2 passages. For this reason it can be
concluded, similarly as before, that this behaviour has no important effect on the flow
downstream where air/gas mixing is taking place. Results from the Point 3 reveal also that the
amplitude grows with the number of elements in a mesh. Explanation may be that the coarser
the mesh is in that area, the more diffused the swinging jet coming from the large damp holes
is. The shape of the jet is more defined in the fine mesh and therefore the Point 3 “feels”
moving of the jet more strongly. In some areas of the domain the oscillations show behaviour
like those revealed by the Point 8 in the Figure 48. The tendencies might not look good
especially for the case with the 35M mesh but, however, the differences between the values
are negligible.
A special behaviour can be observed inside the RPL burner which was monitored with the
Point 16. The tendencies are clear but the values are changing very slowly so that time
averaging is completely irrelevant in this area but a closer look at the graphs brings to light
the fact that the solution progress inside the RPL burner is converging towards a steady state
solution. For the runs with SIT4.2M and My1.9M meshes it can be already confirmed that the
steady state solution has been reached. For the case with 35M mesh the tendency suggests that
the steady state solution has already been reached and this will be confirmed in continuation.
-56-
Point 3 Point 2
Point 16 Point 8
Figure 48: Monitored velocity and methane mass fraction in “the three meshes” in the points shown in the cross
section view of the combustor and additionally also remaining two meshes in the Point 16 (the My1.9M and the
SIT4.2M mesh)
Assuming that for the cases with the remaining meshes (0.55M and 4.3M) the solution
progress has the same tendency as that with the 35M mesh, the results from all meshes inside
the RPL burner may be studied using instantaneous results for the velocity field. Similar
conclusions about methane mass fraction tendencies inside the RPL burner cannot be drawn.
It would have been computationally too expensive to run simulations in order to obtain more
clear solution development of methane mass fraction inside the RPL burner. However, even
for studying equivalence ratio inside the RPL burner instantaneous solution field was used.
While the differences in methane mass fraction results obtained with the “the three meshes”
are small (up to 2%) in the Point 16, the differences in velocities in the same point are large
(over 10%). And obviously the more fine mesh in the RPL the higher velocity is obtained in
the Point 16. In the next section we will take a closer look at the reasons for those differences.
5.5.3 The mesh study

In this section the main comparison between the meshes will be presented. Similarities and
differences will be illustrated with velocity and equivalence ratio fields on a plane and for
more detailed comparison the results will be compared with help of solution distribution
along the evaluation lines. Results obtained from all meshes were thoroughly scrutinized
using the lines shown in the Figure 42 on page 51 where some of them were eventually
moved in axial direction if needed. Not all results from the evaluation lines will be presented
here as many of them are very similar therefore in a similar manner as in former sections the
most important and most representative results will be presented here. As the results obtained
with the My1.9M mesh are in many cases very similar to those obtained with the 4.3M or
SIT4.2M mesh the former is excluded from comparison for more transparent comparison
except in some specific cases. The comparison is therefore principally presented with “the
three meshes” - 0.55M, 4.3M, 35M and the reference mesh SIT4.2M.
-57-
5.5.3.1 Comparison of velocity and equivalence ratio distribution
The Figure 49 shows comparison of velocity field in the whole domain obtained with the four
meshes. The figure is organized so that each half of the domain represents velocity field
results obtained with corresponding mesh as marked in the figure. As obvious from the Figure
49 even the coarsest mesh with only 0.55 million cells gives surprisingly accurate results for
general aerodynamics.
0.55M
Instantaneous axial velocity

in the RPL burner
4.3M
SIT4.2M
35M
Figure 49: Comparison of time averaged velocity field in the whole domain and instantaneous axial velocity
field in the RPL burner obtained with the four meshes
0.55M
4.3M
SIT4.2M
35M
Figure 50: Comparison of time averaged equivalence ratio field in the whole domain obtained with the four
meshes
-58-
Velocity field inside the RPL burner also seemed to be very similar between the meshes used
on the first sight. Large differences in velocity suggested by the Monitor point 16 became
visible only after isolating axial velocity field from the total velocity magnitude field as
shown in the Figure 49. Obviously the RPL burner is very mesh sensitive and needs even
more refined mesh than the reference mesh in order to more accurately resolve velocity field
with respect to the fine 35M mesh. Maybe it is worth to mention that the reference mesh, the
SIT4.2M in this work, has slightly more refined grid in the RPL burner as it had been
proposed by the established meshing approaches.
On the first sight the Figure 50 shows similar differences between the meshes used but the
differences are more distinct. The meshes 0.55M and 4.3M show strong diffusion of
equivalence ratio both inside the Main 1 and Main 2 passages and at the exit of the passages
when the mixture enters the combustion chamber. A closer look to the RPL burner shows also
that the same two meshes are not fine enough to predict accumulation of gas at the root of the
RPL burner as both the SIT4.2M and the 35M do.
5.5.3.2 Quantitative assessment of the meshes along evaluation lines

In the Figure 51 some quantitative differences will be shown. Time averaged velocity and
time averaged equivalence ratio distribution have been thoroughly examined along all lines
shown in the Figure 42 and some additional if needed. Here it will be shown results along
some chosen lines that represent the most critical areas of the domain and at the same time the
most representative for the whole domain. For better information how the three main meshes
perform the results obtained with the reference mesh are added which are illustrated with
dashed lines. On the basis of all data from the evaluation lines conclusions about mesh
dependency in specific areas of the domain can be drawn. Finally a suggestion for a new mesh
with optimized ratio between cell count versus accuracy may be given.
The graph a) shows again large differences in velocity field obtained with all meshes in the
area of highly unstable flow in the air casing of the burner. If we continue downstream the
differences become smaller as seen in the graph b). Already immediately after entering the
Main 1 and Main 2 passages the differences almost completely vanish but they do get slightly
larger near the exit of the passages but the differences are, however, small for all meshes used
as shows the graph c). The differences in equivalence ratio are on the other hand larger
especially inside the Main 2 passage where only the reference mesh gives similar distribution
as the 35M mesh. Thus far we can conclude that the cell size in the Main 2 passage has to be
similar as that in the reference mesh, while in the Main 1 passage only the lower part near the
wall has to be slightly more refined to capture a peak in the velocity magnitude which can be
seen in the bottom part of the graph c). As the unstable flow in the air casing obviously does
not influence the flow downstream and as the differences in mass flow at the entrance of both
passages are negligible for all meshes, it can be concluded that in the complete air casing area
the mesh may be coarse with a similar cell size as in the 0.55M mesh.
The graph e) shows more in detail the large discrepancies in the velocity field inside the RPL
burner. For this particular part of the domain the solution obtained from the My1.9M mesh
was added. This mesh has only slightly more refined grid in the RPL burner as the 0.55M
mesh hence velocity magnitude obviously grows with the fineness of the mesh in the RPL
burner. The graph e) confirms that even the reference mesh is not refined enough to correctly
predict velocity field in the RPL burner if compared against the fine 35M mesh. A similar
conclusion can be made for the equivalence ratio in the RPL burner, as suggested by the graph
f), which leads to requirement of having a very fine grid in this part of the domain.
Continuing downstream towards the pilot tip, where the Line 1 crosses the outlet from the
pilot and the RPL burner, the graph g) shows very small differences in velocity. Even the
-59-
0.55M mesh gives velocity results that are in good agreement with the other meshes used.
However, this is not the case for the equivalence ratio as seen in the graph h) which suggests
that even the reference mesh is not fine enough properly resolve concentration of methane in
that area. This part of the domain needs therefore at least as dense mesh as the reference mesh
has.
a) b) c)
d) e) f)
g) h) i)
j) k) l)
Line 1(Air casing)
Line 1h
Line 1(m1+m2) Line 5 (Chamber)
Line 1 RPL Line 3 (Chamber)
Line 1(RPL+Pilot out)
Figure 51: Velocity and equivalence ratio distribution along the lines obtained from different meshes
Moving downstream towards position of the Line 3 it can be seen that, again, even the
coarsest mesh gives results that are in a good agreement with the others, while solving species
transport equations in that area is more mesh dependent especially near the wall. If we move
-60-
downstream towards the Line 5 and beyond the differences for both variables become very
small as seen in the graphs k) and l). A large part of the combustion chamber may therefore
have relatively coarse mesh where only the walls need be more refined though no inflation
layer is urgently needed. Only the SIT4.2M mesh includes inflation layer for a proper
resolving of the boundary layer on the chamber wall but as obvious from the graphs i), j), k)
and l) what is needed is only more refined mesh at the chamber wall.
5.5.4 The optimized mesh – OPT1.4M

On the basis of the detailed comparison between the results using a number of different
meshes a new mesh with optimized cell count versus accuracy ratio in different parts of the
domain has been proposed. Some parts of the domain needed to be refined (i.e. the RPL
burner), some parts needed to have approximately the same resolution (i.e. combustion
chamber wall, Main 1 and Main 2 exit area) and some parts could be made coarser (i.e.
combustion chamber). A special category represents the parts of the domain which do not
affect mixing process in the pilot burner, the RPL burner and the Main 1 and Main 2
passages. Those areas could therefore be made coarser even though the differences between
the results obtained with different meshes are substantial. To this category belong almost all
parts of the domain where no mixing of air and fuel is taking place, i.e. air inlet casing, main
air casing. It was, however, important that low resolution grid in those parts does not affect
mass flow through different passages of the domain – see Figure 54 on page 63. The proposed
new mesh (OPT1.4M) with 1.4 million cells can be seen in the Figure 52. The optimized
mesh consists of only 1/3 the elements used in the reference mesh therefore about 3 times
shorter computation time may be expected to get similar results.
4 4 2-4 4 2
SIT4.2M
2-4
0.125-0.25 1 0.125-0.25 1 2
6-12 3-12 3-6 12 3

OPT1.4M
3-7.5
0.75-0.375 0.75
0.1875 0.375-0.75 3
Figure 52: Comparison between the reference mesh (SIT4.2M) and the proposed optimized mesh (OPT1.4M)
with important cell sizes in non-dimensional form (the part enclosed with the yellow dashed line could
eventually have cell size equal to 6)
Note that the number of elements could have still been slightly lower but due to specific
limitations in ICEM CFD software some areas could not be made coarser. The first example
-61-
is the air inlet casing. This part of the domain does not need a refined mesh but as the
combustion chamber wall does indeed need to be refined this refinement influences also the
air inlet casing due to a very small distance between them. Element size definition in this
software affects elements in all directions so unintended refinement of air inlet casing could
not be avoided. Another example is the area in the front part of the combustion chamber
(downstream the Main 1 and Main 2 outlets) where a large portion of the domain has a cell
size equal to 3. This area could be smaller but because ICEM CFD offers only one shape of
density box (a shape of a cigar) this was at the moment the optimal configuration of the
density box without compromising a slow gradual increasing of cell size in downstream
direction.
5.5.5 Verification of the optimized mesh

In this section we will take a look at the performance of the proposed mesh generated on the
basis of the mesh study presented in the previous sections.
5.5.5.1 The monitor points

For completeness the Figure 53 shows how the time dependent solution progress using the
optimized mesh compares against previous simulations in the chosen monitor points. The
graphs show similar tendencies except that the moving average values tend to have values
being closer to the values obtained with the 35M mesh which is a good indication.
Point 3 Point 2
Point 16 Point 8
Figure 53: Monitored velocity and methane mass fraction in the same chosen points as shown in the Figure 48
but with included monitored data obtained from the optimized mesh (OPT1.4M)
Assumption from the section 5.5.2 on page 55 regarding velocity tendencies in the Point 16
(inside the RPL burner) may now be confirmed. We assumed that the case with the 35M mesh
has reached a steady state. The SIT4.2M mesh has in this study a uniform size of 1 in the RPL
burner while the 35M mesh has on the other hand size of 0.5 which slowly decreases to 0.25
at the wall. For the OPT1.4M mesh a compromise between those approaches has been chosen
-62-
so that the main cell size of 0.75 more quickly decreases to 0.375 at the wall. The approach
seems to be successful. Initial conditions for the simulation with the OPT1.4M mesh were
interpolated from the final result with the 35M mesh. The simulation with the OPT1.4M mesh
was consequently a continuation of the simulation with the 35M mesh inside the RPL burner
which had already by then reached a steady state solution. And although the OPT1.4M mesh
has less refined mesh in the RPL burner the Monitor point 16 suggests that velocity field
remains unchanged. However, methane concentration tends to grow even further as suggested
by the Monitor point 16 and it is difficult to account when and at which value it will stabilize.
Obviously the longer the run the higher concentration is obtained in the RPL burner as it is
indicated in the Figure 53 showing methane mass fraction in the Monitor point 16. For the
case with the optimized mesh it has grown the most and that is the reason the equivalence
ratio related to the RPL burner will be slightly higher in the following figures.
5.5.5.2 Assessment of the three meshes including the optimized mesh on interfaces
downstream specific passages of the burner
Before examining the performance of the new mesh with help of the evaluation lines let us
take a look at the mass flow values through some important passages of the domain and
averaged values of velocity and equivalence ratio on interfaces between the passages for the
simulations with “the three meshes” and the OPT1.4M mesh.
Table 4: Comparison of time and area averaged normalized velocity, instantaneous mass flow, time and
area averaged equivalence ratio and mass flow averaged equivalence ratio on the crucial interfaces between
specific passages in the domain. The values are compared against the 35M mesh. The differences are max 2%
except in the cells shaded with green or red color.
Main 1 in Main 2 in
Main 2 out
Pilot air in
Main 1 out
RPL air in
Pilot out
Pilot out
Figure 54: Positions of the interfaces at which the data in the Table 4 is extracted (shaded with red color).
-63-
The Table 4 shows, among other variables, comparison of mass flow through the most
important interfaces. There are 13 interfaces in the domain but the 4 interfaces shown are of
utmost importance as they represent outlets of each passage where main mixing is taking
place before entering the combustion chamber where the mixture ignites by the main flame.
Figure 54 additionally shows positions of those outlet interfaces (the names in the boxes
shaded with red colour) and corresponding inlets to those passages (the names in the boxes
shaded with blue colour).
As available variables for sampling time statistics in Fluent include neither mass flow nor
density, instantaneous data for the mass flow had to be used for comparison. Instantaneous
mass flow data may be misleading but as instantaneous pressure, temperature and velocity
values were in good agreement with mass flow on the interfaces, it can be assumed that the
instantaneous mass flow is valid for comparison. Furthermore, mass flow through one of the
interfaces was monitored during one of the last simulations and it showed time dependent
variation of max 3% around the average value. According to the Table 4 the differences in
mass flow are in most cases small. Certainly nearly identical values were observed on the
inlet side of each passage after subtracting mass flow of the added gas from the mixture.
Larger deviations may be noticed when applying the coarse 0.55M mesh and they can exceed
5%. A very coarse mesh in those passages obviously tends to hamper the accuracy. Larger
differences in average equivalence ratio associated with the RPL burner and the OPT1.4M
mesh may be noticed and the reason has been already explained (refer to the Monitor point
16). Larger differences in equivalence ratio (up to 7%) associated with the pilot burner may
be also noticed in the Table 4.
Main 1 in Main 2 in
Main 2 out
Pilot air in
Main 1 out
RPL air in
Pilot out
RPL out
Figure 55: Distribution of time averaged velocity and time averaged equivalence ratio on the interfaces
-64-
The Table 4 shows only average values on the four interfaces therefore it might also be
interesting to see how do the distributions of time averaged velocity and time averaged
equivalence ratio look like on those planes. This is shown in the Figure 55 which illustrates
distribution of time averaged velocity and time averaged equivalence ratio on the interfaces
introduced in the Table 4. For illustrative purposes the 30° section of the interfaces has been
reflected around the centerline as though a whole 360° model was studied. Velocity fields
show very small difference in results obtained with the 4.3M, 35M and the new OPT1.4M
mesh. There are, however, larger differences in distribution of equivalence ratio. While
differences in equivalence ratio distribution on the Main 1 interface are hardly noticeable if
comparing the results obtained with the OPT1.4M mesh against 35M, there are slightly larger
differences on the Main 2 interface. The equivalence ratio obtained with the OPT1.4M mesh
in that area is characterized with more diffused distribution which is naturally a consequence
of less refined mesh in that area. The differences are, however, small therefore only if there is
a specific need to have more refined equivalence ratio distribution in that area more refined
Main 2 passage is advised. For general air/gas mixing studies the OPT1.4M mesh is sufficient
in that area. On the other hand large differences may be seen on the Pilot out interface as
already suggested by the Table 4. The reasons for those large deviations will be discussed in
continuation.
5.5.5.3 Comparison of time averaged velocity and equivalence ratio distribution

In a similar manner as before the Figure 56 and the Figure 57 show velocity field and
equivalence ratio field in the whole domain respectively. The differences between the results
obtained with the new optimized mesh, the reference mesh and the fine mesh are now
minimal if the disregarded air casing is not taken into account. Velocity field inside the RPL
burner obtained with the new mesh is now much more similar to the velocity filed obtained
with the fine mesh than with the reference mesh. The same goes for the equivalence ratio
distribution except that in the case with the new mesh the equivalence ratio in the RPL burner
is higher due to already explained reasons.
OPT1.4M
Instantaneous axial velocity

in the RPL burner
SIT4.2M
35M
Figure 56: Comparison of the time averaged velocity field in the whole domain and instantaneous axial velocity
field in the RPL burner obtained with the optimized mesh (OPT1.4M), the reference mesh (SIT4.2M) and the
fine mesh (35M)
-65-
OPT1.4M
SIT4.2M
35M
Figure 57: Comparison of time averaged equivalence ratio field in the whole domain obtained with the optimized
mesh (OPT1.4M), the reference mesh (SIT4.2M) and the fine mesh (35M)
5.5.5.4 Quantitative assessment of the optimized mesh along evaluation lines

The new mesh performance was thoroughly examined by comparing the results of solution
fields along the evaluation lines in the same manner as it has been done so far. Figure 58
shows the same graphs as the Figure 51 only that the data obtained with the OPT1.4M mesh
were added in order to be able to see how the new mesh compares with the others.
Graphs a) and b) show accuracy of the results which is in the order of the accuracy obtained
with the 0.55M mesh which was of course expected. Other graphs show that the results
obtained with the optimized mesh are in good agreement with the results obtained with the
reference mesh, or even more, in some parts the results are comparable to the results obtained
with the 35M mesh. As already suggested by the Monitor point 16, monitoring velocity inside
the RPL burner, the velocity field obtained with the new mesh is very similar to the one
obtained with the 35M mesh as obvious from the graph g). Equivalence ratio in the RPL
burner is much higher as it was also already suggested by the Monitor point 16. Differences
shown by the graph l) might seem large but note that the differences are relatively very small.
Comparing equivalence ratio at the wall obtained with the OPT1.4M mesh and the 35M mesh
show namely that the maximal difference is less than 3%.
There is, however, one part of the domain that shows certain large deviations in equivalence
ratio which has already been suggested by the mass flow averaged equivalence ratio on the
Pilot out interface given in the Table 4 and the Figure 55. The graph f) in the Figure 58 shows
that the new OPT1.4M mesh gives otherwise very similar results in the area near the outlet of
the RPL and the Pilot burner as the reference mesh SIT4.2M gives. However, large
differences are shown when comparing equivalence ratio obtained with the two meshes
against the 35M mesh. This might be an interesting feature to be explored even further.
-66-
a) b) c)
d) e) f)
g) h) i)
j) k) l)
Line 1(Air casing)
Line 1h
Line 1(m1+m2) Line 5 (Chamber)
Line 1 RPL Line 3 (Chamber)
Line 1(RPL+Pilot out)
Figure 58: Velocity and equivalence ratio distribution along the lines obtained from different meshes with added
results obtained from the optimized mesh
When studying three-dimensional solution fields with help of two-dimensional evaluation

lines a question may arise in this context. To what degree are those lines representative? In
this particular case the values along the lines may change if the lines are moved in tangential
direction. Velocity fields shown in the Figure 55 suggest very small deviations in the
tangential direction while equivalence ratios reveal noticeable variations in tangential
direction especially on the Pilot out interface.
-67-
A useful method to assess this is with exporting two-dimensional node values on a plane a
line in question is lying on. A scatter diagram may be constructed then with all node values on
one axis and all its coordinates in the direction the line is pointing at on the other axis. If there
is no variation in transversal or, as in this case in tangential direction, the scatter diagram will
recreate the graphs along the line in question like shown in the example in the Figure 59.
Conversely the node values would have been scattered around the values suggested by the
line in question. The planes which the data in the Figure 59 is based on can be seen in the
Figure 60.
Pilot tip & Main 1 out
Figure 59: Velocity and equivalence ratio distribution along the line marked in the bottom picture and
corresponding scatter diagram of node values on the plane the line is lying on. The scatter diagram of two-
dimensional data recreates the lines almost exactly and thereby confirms that there is nearly no variation of
velocity and equivalence ratio on this plane in the tangential direction.
Based on the figures seen so far including the Figure 60 we can conclude that the optimized
mesh OPT1.4M gives results being at least as accurate as those obtained with the reference
mesh in all critical parts of the domain with 3x times smaller cell count. Not only that, it has
been confirmed also that the optimized mesh gives results in the RPL burner which are as
accurate as those obtained with the 35M mesh despite slightly less refined mesh in the RPL
burner.
-68-
5.5.5.5 The pilot tip
The Figure 59 and the Figure 60 suggest that the optimized mesh gives results associated with
the equivalence ratio in the pilot burner also as accurate as the reference mesh. However,
equivalence ratio values in this area are not even near the values obtained with the 35M mesh.
This suggests that besides the RPL burner the pilot burner is also very mesh sensitive in terms
of calculating the species transport equations. The Figure 60 shows the influence of much
higher equivalence ratio directly downstream the pilot burner obtained with the 35M mesh
shown in the detail view in the Figure 55 on page 64. Comparison of the equivalence ratio
distribution obtained with the 35M mesh and the OPT1.4M mesh shows a similar distribution
with a distinct difference – “a ring” of much higher equivalence ratio given by the 35M mesh.
Obviously if higher accuracy in the pilot burner than expected to be obtained with the
reference meshing approach even the mesh in the pilot burner needs to be refined.
Figure 60: Time averaged velocity and equivalence ratio distribution at the pilot tip
5.5.6 Refining the pilot mesh –OPT1.8M

The characteristic geometry of the 30° sector model allows relatively simple refinement of the
pilot burner, without a large amount of redundant cells, with use of region adaption tool in the
Fluent software. The optimal shape of the region to enclose the pilot burner geometry was in
this case a cylinder. The optimal radius and position coordinates were found in the ICEM
CFD software and the needed data about the cylinder were then transferred to Fluent. The
position of the cylinder can be seen in the Figure 61.
Figure 61: The region in which the grid cells are adapted (splitted)
-69-
Splitting cells in this small area resulted in additional 0.4 million cells which sums up to 1.8
million cells for the second optimized mesh which may be called the OPT1.8M mesh. There
are, however, still many redundant cells which were created unintentionally but unavoidable.
Most of them may be found around the RPL outlet where the cells were relatively small
already before splitting. Cell sizes in the pilot burner are thus in the range of 0.1875-0.375
instead of 0.375-0.75 as in the OPT1.4M mesh. The adaption of the pilot burner results also in
slightly more refined mesh in the pilot burner together with the pilot outlet area than in the
35M mesh which affects the results even further.
Referring back to the Figure 55 on page 64 large differences in equivalence ratio distribution
directly downstream the pilot exit were observed. This affected also equivalence ratio
distribution at the pilot tip as shown in the Figure 60. After refining the OPT1.4M mesh in the
pilot burner the resulting equivalence ratio downstream the pilot outlet can be seen in the
Figure 61.
Pilot out
RPL out
Figure 62: Equivalence ratio distribution directly downstream the pilot exit obtained with the OPT1.8M mesh
and the 35M mesh
The equivalence ratio distribution is due to even more refined mesh in that area comparing to
the 35M mesh also more refined which suggests that even the 35M mesh was not refined
enough in the area to reach mesh independent solution. This fact opens a question whether
even smaller cells are needed in the pilot burner area to reach theoretical mesh independency
in the area. Nevertheless, the problematic area illustrated by the graph f) in the Figure 58
found on page 67 is now corrected as seen in the Figure 63. Equivalence ratio distribution
along Line 1 in that part of the domain is now almost identical to that obtained with the 35M
mesh.
Figure 63: Equivalence ratio distribution discrepancy along Line 1 corrected with the OPT1.8M mesh
-70-
The Figure 60 showed the influence of equivalence ratio distribution directly downstream the
pilot outlet on distribution at the pilot tip. It might be interesting to see what difference does
the mesh refinement in the pilot burner do at the pilot tip. Figure 64 shows that in this area the
differences in equivalence ratio obtained with the OPT1.8M and the 35M mesh are
undistinguishable. No significant changes in equivalence distribution downstream the pilot tip
were observed therefore no additional figures showing the performance of the OPT1.8M mesh
are shown here.
Figure 64: Predicted time averaged equivalence ratio distribution at the pilot tip obtained with the OPT1.8M and
the 35M mesh
5.5.7 Conclusion remarks for the 4th generation DLE burner mesh
optimization
With respect to assumptions made for this mesh study it can be concluded that the established
meshing approaches for the 4th generation DLE burner can be improved to better optimize cell
count versus accuracy of the air/gas mixing simulations. It has been shown that the first
optimized mesh, the OPT1.4M with 1.4 million elements, gives at least as good or even
slightly more accurate results than the mesh created according to established meshing
approaches with 3x smaller cell count. The OPT1.4M mesh is especially characterized by
superior performance in the RPL burner which turned out to be very mesh sensitive even for
general aerodynamics calculations.
It is not too far-fetched to state that the second optimized mesh with a refined pilot burner, the
OPT1.8M mesh with 1.8 million elements, gives results that can be compared with the mesh
that has 35 million elements (the 35M mesh). This consequently means that comparable
results can be obtained with almost 20x lower cell count.
Saving a large number of elements was possible due to demonstrated low mesh dependency in
the combustion chamber and the shown fact that a coarse mesh in the complete air casing
does not influence flow conditions downstream where the air/gas mixing process begins. On
the other hand it has been shown that the RPL and the pilot burner are very mesh sensitive
and they both needed to be substantially refined. However, despite that fact the net cell count
increase was still negative which lead to a relatively large decrease in cell count.
-71-
6 DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
THE SHORT 3RD GENERATION DLE BURNER STUDY
The first shorter part of this work involved a brief mesh study of the Siemens’ 3rd generation
DLE burner for industrial gas turbines in the ignition stage of the burner’s operation.
Furthermore a comparison of the results obtained with two different CFD solvers, Ansys CFX
and Ansys Fluent, was performed. Simulations involved gas/air mixing in the 90° sector
model therefore velocity field and distribution of equivalence ratio in the domain were of
main interest. The brief mesh study was performed with only two meshes where the original
mesh consisted of 2.8 million elements and the control mesh was created with region adaption
tool in Fluent software which resulted in 22.7 million elements.
The differences in both velocity field and equivalence ratio obtained with both meshes were
found to be minimal which suggests that the original mesh has an optimal ratio cell count
versus accuracy for simulations performed with Fluent solver. On the other hand the
comparison of the results between the solvers showed large discrepancies in both velocity
field and equivalence ratio distribution despite identical mesh, boundary conditions and
turbulence model used in both solvers. Despite the same turbulence model (k-ω SST) used in
both solvers large difference in turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent eddy dissipation values
were discovered – Fluent solver predicted significantly higher values. In search for finding an
explanation it has been discovered that the k-ω SST turbulence model is slightly differently
“tuned up” in both solvers. While most of model coefficients have practically the same values
they are treated slightly differently. Among others uses Fluent solver more sophisticated
blending functions used for blending of certain coefficients between values related to k-ε and
k-ω turbulence models. The first suggestion for further study is therefore to investigate more
in detail the implementations of otherwise very popular k-ω SST turbulence model in both
solvers (i.e. blending functions, production limiters, etc.) and try to find the reasons for such
large discrepancies. Different behaviour of turbulent models may therefore also to some
degree affect discrepancies between the predicted velocity and equivalence ratio distribution,
not only that, it has also been shown that both solvers use different discretization techniques
which may also contribute to the discrepancies.
Comparing velocity field and equivalence ratio distribution obtained with two differently
refined meshes within CFX solver showed significant differences. This observation suggests
that CFX solver is more grid resolution sensitive than Fluent. This property can be associated
with different discretization techniques employed by solvers. It has been suggested namely
that the vertex centered finite volume method (employed by CFX solver) should be less
accurate than the cell centered finite volume method (employed by Fluent) on the same
tetrahedral mesh. The second suggestion for further study is therefore to investigate more in
detail whether the Fluent solver is indeed less grid resolution sensitive as this short study
suggests. Furthermore, as relatively large differences in velocity field obtained with both
solvers are characterized by different position of stagnation point in the burner naturally a
question arises which result is closer to reality. This trait may be relatively simply
investigated experimentally in the atmospheric combustion rig with finding the position of the
stagnation point.
-72-
THE 4TH GENERATION DLE BURNER MESH OPTIMIZATION
There exist established meshing approaches for the new 4th generation DLE burner but mesh
dependency has not been fully evaluated yet. Therefore the main goal of this extended mesh
study in the main part of this work was to answer to the question whether it is possible to
improve meshing approaches to better optimize cell count versus accuracy for this particular
burner for air/gas mixing simulations.
Because 90° sector model was still too demanding to perform a mesh study with respect to
available computer resources a 30° sector model was created instead. Despite some small
geometrical assumptions made, the 30° sector model turned out to be a good representation of
the 90° sector model and thereby a good representation of the full model. This was shown
with comparison of two different models where established meshing approaches were applied
which yield 12.1 million elements and 4.2 million cells for the 90° and 30° sector model
respectively. The latter was used as a reference mesh for further mesh study among other
additional meshes with different levels of refinement.
It has been shown that already a very coarse mesh (0.55 million elements for the 30° sector)
gives fairly good general aerodynamics results while for accurate species transport equations
solving a significantly more refined mesh is needed. In order to be able to get accurate results
it has been shown that the RPL burner is very mesh sensitive even for general aerodynamics
studies and both the RPL and the Pilot burner are very mesh sensitive in terms of solving
species transport equations. The RPL and the Pilot burner need to have therefore significantly
more refined mesh as it has been used so far with the established meshing approaches.
However, if similar accuracy as with the established meshing approaches is desired it has
been shown that an optimized mesh with 1.4 million cells gives slightly better results than the
reference mesh (4.2 million cells) for studying mixing processes in the burner and combustion
chamber. The answer to the question given as the main goal of this thesis is therefore positive.
Similar results as those obtained with the established meshing approaches may namely be
obtained with 3x smaller cell count.
Furthermore it has been shown that if the pilot burner is suitably refined, which resulted in
additional 0.4 million elements for the new mesh with 1.8 million elements, the results can be
compared with the finest mesh used in this work that has 35 million cells. With a slight
exaggeration can therefore be stated that a similar results as those obtained with the finest
mesh can be obtained with almost 20x smaller cell count.
The suggested meshing approaches can still be slightly more optimized with removing excess
cells in the front part of the combustion chamber with better manipulation of density boxes in
meshing software, and especially in the area around the RPL and the pilot burner outlet where
the region adaption tool created some redundant elements. The first suggestion for further
study is therefore to create a new mesh according to suggested approaches and if specified
areas are optimized a new mesh should probably have between 1.4 and 1.6 instead of 1.8
million elements. In this context it might eventually be interesting to investigate to what
degree the pilot burner must be refined to reach mesh independency.
A large portion of available time for this work was devoted to find a cost effective steady state
solution which was unfortunately unsuccessful for this case. The only option was therefore to
employ time dependent simulations with time statistics sampling. One of the main reasons
that time dependent simulations for this case are so time consuming is a very small time step
size needed (10-5s in this study). A brief time step size study showed that for resolving
velocity field the time step size may be larger but no certain conclusion could be made
concerning solving species transport equations. The second suggestion for further study is
-73-
therefore to perform a time step study to investigate if it is possible to accelerate very time
consuming transient calculations with raising the time step size.
The third suggestion for further study would be to test this meshing approach on a 90° sector
model or on a full model. It would be also interesting to test the performance of the optimized
mesh with Ansys CFX solver. Would CFX solver for this case show similar behaviour as
observed in the first part of this work?
This mesh study and resulting optimized mesh is, maybe needless to say, applicable to
simulations performed with Eddy viscosity based turbulence models only. For employing
more sophisticated turbulence models like LES or SAS a new mesh study with slightly
different approach (i.e. only full 360° model is applicable) needs to be performed. This may
also be a good suggestion for further study.
-74-
REFERENCES
[1] From Workshop to Global Player (Siemens 1847–2007)
http://www.siemens.com/history/pool/en/history/1847-
1865_beginnings_and_initial_expansion/company_history.pdf; accessed 2015/08
[2] Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery, 2015
[3] Fact sheet: History of the gas turbine at Siemens;
http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/2012-02-SGT5-8000H/factsheet-
history-gas-turbine-e.pdf; accessed 2015/08
[4] The history of the Industrial Gas Turbine (Part 1 The First Fifty Years 1940-1990);
Ronald J Hunt; CEng FIMechE FIDGTE; IDGTE
[5] Siemens SIT; http://www.sit-ab.se/01_historia.html; accessed 2015/08
[6] Aircraft Propulsion; http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/turbine3.html; accessed 2015/08
[7] Industrial gas turbines, A.M.Y. Razak; Woodehead Publishing Limited, Cambridge
England, 2007
[8] "Gas turbine applications (numbered)" by Olivier Cleynen - Own workThis vector
image was created with Inkscape.. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_turbine_applications_(numbered).svg#/media/
File:Gas_turbine_applications_(numbered).svg
[9] Siemens; http://www.energy.siemens.com/nl/en/fossil-power-generation/gas-
turbines/sgt-700.htm; accesed 2015/08
[10] The Gas Turbine Handbook: Principles and Practises; Tony Giampaolo, MSME,
P.E.; Second edition; The Fairmont press inc.; Lilburn, Georgia
[11] Aircraft Engine Design, Second edition, D. Mattingly, H. Heiser, T. Pratt; American
Institute of Aeronavtics and Astronautics, 2002
[12] Gas turbines, A handbook of Air, Land and Sea Applications; Claire Soares
[13] http://www.aircav.com/gencombu.html; accessed 2015/08
[14] Combustion chambers, A.G. Tumanovski; All-Russian Thermal Engineering Institute,
Moscow, Russia; Thermal to mechanical energy conversion engines and requirements – Vol.
III
[15] Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook, Fourth Edition 2012; Meherwan P. Boyce;
Elsevier Inc
[16] Ansys Inc., 2015 Documentation
[17] Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Second edition; John C.
Tannehill, Dale A. Anderson, Richard H. Pletcher; Taylor&Francis, 1997
[18] Fluid Mechanics, Fifth edition; Pijush K. Kundu, Ira M. Cohen, David R. Dowling;
Elsevier Inc. 2012
[19] Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Compressible Jets; Berhard Semlitch; PhD
dissertation; KTH mechanics Royal Institute of Technology; Stockholm 2014
[20] Turbulence Lecture Notes, A.V. Johansson, S.Wallin, ; KTH mechanics Royal
Institute of Technology; Stockholm 2012
-75-
[21] Turbulent Flows, Stephen B. Pope, Cornell University, Cambridge university press,
2000
[22] Comparison and evaluation of cell-centered and cell-vertex discretization in the
unstructured TAU code for turbulent viscous flow; Gang Wang, Axel Schwope, Ralf
Heinrich; DLR, Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Lilienthalplatz 7, 38108
Braunschweig, Germany. V European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics
[23] Concepts for Scientific Computing; R. Heinzl;
http://www.iue.tuwien.ac.at/phd/heinzl/node25.html; accessed 2015/09
[24] A brief review of simple finite volume schemes using triangular meshes; Sanderson L.,
Gonzaga de Oliviera; DCC, UFLA, 37200-000, Lavras
[25] Coupling Momentum and Continuity Increases CFD Robustness; Franklyn J. Kelecy;
ANSYS Inc
[26] Combustion; J. Warnatz, U.Mass, R.W. Dibble; 4th edition; Springer, Germany
[27] Prediction of ignition limits with respect to fuel fraction of inert gases; Johan
Sjölander; Master thesis, Umeå university and Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery, 2015
[28] NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods,
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/ ; accessed 2015/09
[29] The Stock Market Watch; http://www2.thestockmarketwatch.com/learn-stock-
market/moving-average/ ; accessed 2015/09
[30] HOMARD v7.2 documentation; http://www.code-
aster.org/outils/homard/en/intro.html ; accessed 2015/09
[31] Handbook of the Speed of Sound in Real Gases, by A. J. Zuckerwar (Academic Press,
2002).
[32] Experimental and numerical investigation of a combustor model; Darioush G Barhagi,
Jacek Janczevski, Thomas Larsson; Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB; Proceedings of
ASME Turbo Expo 2011,GT2011, June 6-10, 2011, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
[33] An attempt to predict and optimize fuel and air mixing in the SGT-750 prototype
burner; Magnus Persson, Internal technical report, Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery; 2012-
08-13
[34] Siemens Gas Turbines; http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/fossil-power-
generation/gas-turbines/ ; accessed 2015/10
[35] Performance upgrade of Siemens SGT-800 industrial gas turbine;
http://www.siemens.com/press/en/feature/2015/power-gas/2015-06-sgt-800.php ; accessed
2015/10
[36] Gas Turbine SGT-800; http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/fossil-power-
generation/gas-turbines/sgt-800.htm#content=Technical%20data ; accessed 2015/10
[37] Gas Turbine SGT-750; http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/fossil-power-
generation/gas-turbines/sgt-750.htm ; accessed 2015/10
[38] The Siemens SGT-750 Gas Turbine: Developed fort he oil and gas industry; Anders
Hellberg; Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB, Finspång, Sweden
[39] CFD evaluation of a jet in cross flow related to a gas turbine burner; Akram Soroush,
Master thesis; Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden 2012
-76-
APPENDIX
MATLAB code for processing monitor points data
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
clear all
close all
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%----INSERT FILE NAMES-----%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

files=['point-1-main-1-vel.out ' %35 characters
'point-1-main-1-ch4.out '
'point-2-main-2-vel.out '
'point-2-main-2-ch4.out '
'point-3-main-in-2-vel.out '
'point-4-air-in-vel.out '
'point-5-pilot-out-vel.out '
'point-6-rpl-out-vel.out '
'point-7-chamber-cent-fwd-vel.out '
'point-8-chamber-cent-mid-ch4.out '
'point-8-chamber-cent-mid-vel.out '
'point-9-chamber-upp-bck-vel.out '
'point-10-chamber-upp-fwd.out '
'point-10-chamber-upp-fwd-ch4.out '
%%% New Points %%%
'point-11-m1-behind-rod-ch4.out '
'point-11-m1-behind-rod-vel.out '
'point-12-m2-behind-rod-ch4.out '
'point-12-m2-behind-rod-vel.out '
'point-13-m2-exit-ch4.out '
'point-13-m2-exit-vel.out '
'point-14-swirl-m1-vel.out '
'point-15-swirl-m2-vel.out '
'point-16-rpl-inside-ch4.out '
'point-16-rpl-inside-vel.out '
'point-17-rpl-throat-ch4.out '
'point-17-rpl-throat-vel.out '
'point-18-chamber-fillet-ch4.out '
'point-18-chamber-fillet-vel.out '
];
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
nfiles=size(files,1);
cases=[1 2 3 5 6 7]; % Choose which cases to compare
for i=cases
for j=1:nfiles
readData(:,j) = dlmread(fullfile...
('H:\My Documents\SGT-750\SGT-750_30d\30d-FLUENT\The3Meshes_TRANSIENT\'...
,num2str(i),num2str(files(j,:))),' ',2,1);
dataCell{1,i}=readData;
end
clear readData
end
%%
%%%%%% Calculating Running Average %%%%%%%%
for k=cases
it=length(dataCell{1,k});
for l=1:nfiles
ra{1,k}(1,l)=dataCell{1,k}(1,l); % first entry
for m=2:it
ra{1,k}(m,l)=(ra{1,k}(m-1,l)*(m-1)+dataCell{1,k}(m,l))/m;
end
end
end
%%
-77-
%%%%%%% Plotting %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
C = {'r','b','g','k',[0.5 .2 0.1],'m',[.5 .6 .7]}; % Cell array of colors.
autoLegend = {'0.55M', '4.3M','35M','My2M','SIT4.2M','OPT1.4M','OPT1.8M'}; % Names of the

cases
autoTitle = {'Point 1 - Velocity (Main 1)','Point 1 - CH4 (Main 1)','Point 2 - Velocity (Main
2)','Point 2 - CH4 (Main 2)',...
'Point 3 - Velocity (Main 2 In)','Point 4 - Velocity (Air In)','Point 5 - Velocity (Pilot
Out)','Point 6 - Velocity (RPL Out)',...
'Point 7 - Velocity (Chamber Front Middle)','Point 8 - CH4 (Chamber Middle)','Point 8 -
Velocity (Chamber Middle)',...
'Point 9 - Velocity (Chamber Outlet)','Point 10 - Velocity (Chamber Upper Front)','Point
10 - CH4 (Chamber Upper Front)',...
'Point 11 - CH4 (Behind Rod - Main 1)','Point 11 - Velocity (Behind Rod - Main 1)','Point
12 - CH4 (Behind Rod - Main 2)',...
'Point 12 - Velocity (Behind Rod - Main 2)','Point 13 - CH4 (Main 2 Exit)','Point 13 -
Velocity (Main 2 Exit))',...
'Point 14 - Velocity (Main 1 - Swirler)','Point 15 - Velocity (Main 2 - Swirler)','Point
16 - CH4 (RPL Inside)',...
'Point 16 - Velocity (RPL Inside)','Point 17 - CH4 (RPL Throat)','Point 17 - Velocity (RPL
Throat))',...
'Point 18 - CH4 (Chamber Wall Fillet)','Point 18 - Velocity (Chamber Wall Fillet)'};
autoYlabel = {'Velocity [m/s]','CH4 Mass Fraction','Velocity [m/s]','CH4 Mass

Fraction','Velocity [m/s]','Velocity [m/s]',...
'Velocity [m/s]','Velocity [m/s]','Velocity [m/s]','CH4 Mass Fraction',...
'Velocity [m/s]','Velocity [m/s]','Velocity [m/s]','CH4 Mass Fraction',...
'CH4 Mass Fraction','Velocity [m/s]','CH4 Mass Fraction','Velocity [m/s]','CH4
Mass Fraction','Velocity [m/s]',...
'Velocity [m/s]','Velocity [m/s]','CH4 Mass Fraction','Velocity [m/s]',...
'CH4 Mass Fraction','Velocity [m/s]','CH4 Mass Fraction','Velocity [m/s]'};
for n=1:nfiles
figure(n)
for o=cases
x=1:length(dataCell{1,o});
set(gca,'fontsize', 17);
plot(x,dataCell{1,o}(:,n),'DisplayName',...
['Data - ' autoLegend{o}], 'Color',C{o} );
hold on
plot(x,ra{1,o}(:,n),'LineWidth',2,'DisplayName'...
,['MMA - ' autoLegend{o}], 'Color',C{o});
grid on
%title(num2str(files(n,:))) % Create title based on file name
title(autoTitle{n})
xlabel('Time step')
ylabel(autoYlabel{n})
end
leg=legend(gca,'show','location','best');
set(leg,'FontSize',12);
set(gcf,'PaperPositionMode','auto')
print(figure(n),autoTitle{n},'-dpng','-r0') %%%Save to file
end
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-78-

Unstructured Mesh Optimization For Gasturbine - Burner

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Unstructured Mesh Optimization For Gasturbine - Burner

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS

UNSTRUCTURED MESH OPTIMIZATION FOR

School of Engineering Sciences, Department of mechanics,

Computational Fluid Dynamics unstructured mesh

Industrial Supervisors: Dr. Daniel Lörstad

Academic Supervisor: Dr. Bernhard Semlitsch

Finspång, October 2015

GAS TURBINES AT SIEMENS

FROM STAL TO SIEMENS IN FINSPÅNG, SWEDEN

Figure 1: The portfolio of Siemens gas turbines [34]

1.4 Gas turbines

Instead of a propeller a larger ventilator can be installed and so we get a (high-bypass)

Figure 5: Two-shaft gas turbine Siemens SGT-700 [9]

Figure 6: An early combustion chamber [12]

Figure 7: Flame stabilizing and general airflow pattern [12]

MULTIPLE COMBUSTION CHAMBER

Figure 8: Multiple combustion chambers [12]

CAN-ANNULAR COMBUSTION CHAMBER

ANNULAR COMBUSTION CHAMBER

Figure 10: Annular combustion chamber [12]

1.5 The Dry Low Emissions Combustors

1.5.1 The Siemens SGT-800 and 3rd generation DLE burner

Figure 12: The SGT-800 [35]

Figure 13: The Siemens 3rd generation DLE burner [2]

Figure 14: The SGT-750 [37]

Main 1 gas Main 2 gas

Convective combustor cooling

Figure 15: The 4th generation DLE burner [38]

2.1 Governing equations in Fluid Mechanics

2.1.1 Mass Conversation Equation

2.1.2 Momentum Conservation Equation

where the substantial derivative is defined as:

If we expand the equation (2.2) with help of (2.3) we get:

2.1.3 Conservation of energy

2.1.4 Equation of state

2.3 Turbulence modelling

2.3.1 Raynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations

2.3.1.1 Eddy viscosity models

ALGEBRAIC MODELS OR ZERO EQUATION MODELS

ONE EQUATION MODELS

TWO EQUATION MODELS

2.3.1.1.1 The standard eddy viscosity model

where is turbulent kinetic energy production term,

2.3.1.1.2 The eddy viscosity model

Similarly as in molecular viscosity there is a relation

The model equations read

where , , , , and are again model constants with standard values.

2.3.1.1.3 The SST model

THE SST TURBULENCE MODEL IN ANSYS CFX AND FLUENT

2.3.3 Large Eddy Simulation (LES)

2.4 Species transport

2.4.1 Mass diffusion in turbulent flows

In the above equation is the turbulent Schmidt number which is defined as

where is turbulent viscosity and is turbulent diffusivity. The dimensionless number

2.4.2 Species transport in the energy equation

2.4.3 Equivalence ratio

2.5 Numerical methods

Equation (2.46) represents a differential equation but in order to be able to discretize

2.5.1.1 Cell-centered and vertex-centered Finite Volume Methods

TESTING OF CELL-CENTERED AND VERTEX-CENTERED SCHEME

2.5.1.2 Spatial discretization

2.5.2 Temporal discretization

2.5.3 Continuity and momentum equation coupling