钝体燃烧器湍流预混燃烧的数值模拟  

Numerical Simulation on Premixed Turbulent Combustion in a Bluff Body Burner

作　　者：钟仕立[1] 尹航[1] 戴韧[1] 叶舟[1] 陈永辰[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海理工大学能源与动力工程学院,上海200093

出　　处：《动力工程学报》2011年第3期192-197,共6页Journal of Chinese Society of Power Engineering

摘　　要：采用湍流火焰封闭燃烧模型(TFC)模拟了钝体燃烧器的湍流预混燃烧,比较了基于火焰褶皱率和湍流燃烧速度2种源项解法对钝体预混燃烧的预测,对3个不同湍流燃烧速度表达式模拟的性能进行了比较,采用粒子成像测速技术(PIV)测量了燃烧器中心射流出口的速度分布,并将其作为边界条件代入计算.结果表明:不同湍流燃烧速度公式的计算结果在火焰刷厚度、位置及火焰前锋位置方面存在较大差别;Gulder公式的计算结果最接近试验数据,火焰刷厚度与试验结果吻合较好,但火焰刷位置与试验结果差别较大;Dinkelacker的火焰褶皱率模型主要模拟燃烧器在高压条件下的燃烧,在运行压力接近标准大气压的情况下,计算结果与试验值存在较大误差.Turbulent flame closure（TFC） model was adopted to simulate the premixed turbulent combustion in a bluff body burner.Predictions for the premixed combustion by two solutions respectively based on flame-wrinkling ratio and turbulent burning speed were compared,while performances simulated by three different expressions for turbulent burning speed evaluated.PIV technology was adopted to measure the velocity profile of central jet flow at the burner exit,and the measured velocities were used as computational boundary conditions.Results show that there are large differences among calculated results obtained by different expressions for turbulent burning speed in the aspect of flame brush thickness,flame brush position and flame frontal position.Calculated results by Gulder expression agree best with experimental data,and the calculated thickness of flame brush agrees well with test results,but the calculated position of flame brush differs a lot from that of experiment.The flame-wrinkling ratio model by Dinkelacker is mainly available for simulating combustion at high pressure,thereby big error may be found between calculated and test results in the case of operating at normal pressure.

关 键 词：钝体燃烧器 湍流火焰封闭模型 湍流燃烧速度 粒子成像测速技术 数值模拟 

分 类 号：TK223.23[动力工程及工程热物理—动力机械及工程]