Assessment of the constant non-unity Lewis number assumption in chemically-reacting flows

Accurate computation of molecular diffusion coefficients in chemically reacting flows can be an expensive procedure, and the use of constant non-unity Lewis numbers has been adopted often as a cheaper alternative. The goal of the current work is to explore the validity and the limitations of the constant non-unity Lewis number approach in the description of molecular mixing in laminar and turbulent flames. To carry out this analysis, three test cases have been selected, including a lean, highly unstable, premixed hydrogen/air flame, a lean turbulent premixed n-heptane/air flame, and a laminar ethylene/air coflow diffusion flame. For the hydrogen flame, both a laminar and a turbulent configuration have been considered. The three flames are characterised by Lewis numbers which are less than unity, greater than unity, and close to unity, respectively. For each flame, mixture-averaged transport simulations are carried out and used as reference data. The current analysis suggests that, for numerous combustion configurations, the constant non-unity Lewis number approximation leads to small errors when the set of Lewis numbers is chosen properly. For the selected test cases and our numerical framework, the reduction of computational cost is found to be minimal.

[1]  R. Barlow,et al.  Piloted methane/air jet flames: Transport effects and aspects of scalar structure , 2005 .

[2]  Guillaume Blanquart,et al.  Differential diffusion effects, distributed burning, and local extinctions in high Karlovitz premixed flames , 2015 .

[3]  Jacqueline H. Chen,et al.  Direct numerical simulation of hydrogen-enriched lean premixed methane–air flames , 2004 .

[4]  Ulrich Maas,et al.  Model Reduction for Combustion Chemistry , 2011 .

[5]  F. R. Picchia,et al.  A review of chemical diffusion: Criticism and limits of simplified methods for diffusion coefficient calculation , 2008 .

[6]  Chung King Law,et al.  Combustion at a crossroads: Status and prospects , 2007 .

[7]  Heinz Pitsch,et al.  High order conservative finite difference scheme for variable density low Mach number turbulent flows , 2007, J. Comput. Phys..

[8]  C. Law,et al.  Numerical study of interaction between Darrieus-Landau instability and spatially periodic shear flow , 2015 .

[9]  S. Lapointe,et al.  Vorticity transformation in high Karlovitz number premixed flames , 2016 .

[10]  F. Egolfopoulos,et al.  Direct numerical simulations of probe effects in low-pressure flame sampling , 2015 .

[11]  A. Tomboulides,et al.  Hydrodynamic and thermodiffusive instability effects on the evolution of laminar planar lean premixed hydrogen flames , 2012, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[12]  Evatt R. Hawkes,et al.  Scalar mixing in direct numerical simulations of temporally evolving plane jet flames with skeletal CO/H2 kinetics ☆ , 2007 .

[13]  Steven G. Johnson,et al.  The Design and Implementation of FFTW3 , 2005, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[14]  Joseph F. Grcar,et al.  The Soret effect in naturally propagating, premixed, lean, hydrogen–air flames , 2009 .

[15]  Michael E. Mueller,et al.  On the formation and early evolution of soot in turbulent nonpremixed flames , 2010 .

[16]  Robert K. Cheng,et al.  Cellular burning in lean premixed turbulent hydrogen-air flames: Coupling experimental and computational analysis at the laboratory scale , 2009 .

[17]  G. Blanquart,et al.  Broken reaction zone and differential diffusion effects in high Karlovitz n-C7H16 premixed turbulent flames , 2015 .

[18]  William L. Roberts,et al.  Effect of diluents on soot precursor formation and temperature in ethylene laminar diffusion flames , 2013 .

[19]  Ronald K. Hanson,et al.  An improved H2/O2 mechanism based on recent shock tube/laser absorption measurements , 2011 .

[20]  Tianfeng Lu,et al.  Direct numerical simulations of ignition of a lean n-heptane/air mixture with temperature inhomogeneities at constant volume: Parametric study , 2011 .

[21]  Long Liang,et al.  A dynamic adaptive chemistry scheme for reactive flow computations , 2009 .

[22]  Tiegang Fang,et al.  Hydrocarbon species concentrations in nitrogen diluted ethylene-air laminar jet diffusion flames at elevated pressures , 2013 .

[23]  H. Pitsch,et al.  Chemical mechanism for high temperature combustion of engine relevant fuels with emphasis on soot precursors , 2009 .

[24]  James A. Sethian,et al.  THE DERIVATION AND NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF THE EQUATIONS FOR ZERO MACH NUMBER COMBUSTION , 1985 .

[25]  S. Saxena,et al.  Thermal conductivity of binary, ternary and quaternary mixtures of rare gases , 1967 .

[26]  Jacqueline H. Chen,et al.  Response of flame thickness and propagation speed under intense turbulence in spatially developing lean premixed methane–air jet flames , 2015 .

[27]  R. Barlow,et al.  Scalar profiles and NO formation in laminar opposed-flow partially premixed methane/air flames , 2001 .

[28]  G. Blanquart,et al.  An a priori model for the effective species Lewis numbers in premixed turbulent flames , 2014 .

[29]  N. Peters,et al.  A Consistent Flamelet Formulation for Non-Premixed Combustion Considering Differential Diffusion Effects , 1998 .

[30]  William H. Green,et al.  An adaptive chemistry approach to modeling complex kinetics in reacting flows , 2003 .

[31]  Marcus S. Day,et al.  Turbulence-chemistry interaction in lean premixed hydrogen combustion , 2015 .

[32]  V. Giovangigli.  Multicomponent transport in laminar flames , 2015 .

[33]  A. Majda.  Compressible fluid flow and systems of conservation laws in several space variables , 1984 .

[34]  Venkat Raman,et al.  Flux corrected finite volume scheme for preserving scalar boundedness in reacting large-eddy simulations , 2006 .

[35]  Yuan Xuan,et al.  A computationally-efficient, semi-implicit, iterative method for the time-integration of reacting flows with stiff chemistry , 2015, J. Comput. Phys..

[36]  J. Bell,et al.  A combined computational and experimental characterization of lean premixed turbulent low swirl laboratory flames , 2012 .

[37]  Guillaume Blanquart,et al.  A proposed modification to Lundgren's physical space velocity forcing method for isotropic turbulence , 2013 .

[38]  Heinz Pitsch,et al.  IMPROVED POLLUTANT PREDICTIONS IN LARGE-EDDY SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT NON-PREMIXED COMBUSTION BY CONSIDERING SCALAR DISSIPATION RATE FLUCTUATIONS , 2002 .

[39]  S. Pope.  Small scales, many species and the manifold challenges of turbulent combustion , 2013 .

[40]  G. Blanquart,et al.  Structure of a high Karlovitz n -C 7 H 16 premixed turbulent flame , 2015 .

[41]  M. Smooke,et al.  The impact of detailed multicomponent transport and thermal diffusion effects on soot formation in ethylene/air flames , 2009 .

[42]  Jacqueline H. Chen,et al.  Comparison of direct numerical simulation of lean premixed methane–air flames with strained laminar flame calculations , 2006 .

[43]  H. Pitsch,et al.  An efficient error-propagation-based reduction method for large chemical kinetic mechanisms , 2008 .

[44]  Robert D. Falgout,et al.  hypre: A Library of High Performance Preconditioners , 2002, International Conference on Computational Science.

[45]  Y. Xuan,et al.  Numerical modeling of sooting tendencies in a laminar co-flow diffusion flame , 2013 .

[46]  P. Moin,et al.  Application of a Fractional-Step Method to Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations , 1984 .

[47]  C. Law,et al.  The effect of flame structure on soot formation and transport in turbulent nonpremixed flames using direct numerical simulation , 2007 .

[48]  Mitchell D. Smooke,et al.  The computation of laminar flames , 2013 .

[49]  Tiziano Faravelli,et al.  Experimental formulation and kinetic model for JP-8 surrogate mixtures , 2002 .