
[Sponsors] 
November 21, 2005, 10:30 
increasing the specific heat capacity

#1 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I have seen in the Fluent manual the following information:
Global reaction mechanisms with one or two steps inevitably neglect the intermediate species. In hightemperature flames, neglecting these dissociated species may cause the temperature to be overpredicted. A more realistic temperature field can be obtained by increasing the specific heat capacity for each species. Rose and Cooper [ 362] have created a set of specific heat polynomials as a function of temperature. 362 Rose J. W. and Cooper J. R. Technical Data on Fuel. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1977. Unfortunately this book is out of print now. Could somebody say something about procedures and assumptions that have been used to create this set of polynomials? 

November 22, 2005, 03:37 
Re: increasing the specific heat capacity

#2 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I dont have acces to the book you mentioned but tried to calculate the modified polynom for oxygen and this is what i came up with.
Consider endothermal the reaction O2 <==> 2 O delta_H=+498,4 kj/mol We can caculate the change of gibb free energy (G(T)) from Delta_GR=2 * G_O  G_O2 and the equilibrium constant Kp=exp(Delta_GR/(R*T)) Equilibrium concentrations can be calculated from Kp=(p_O)^2/p_O2 p_O partial pressure O in atm p_O2 partial pressure O2 in atm or in mole fractions Kp*p=(n_O)^2/n_O2 p system pressure in atm Taking one mole O2 at 1 atm pressure we get T DGR Kp n O n O2 H(T) K j/kmol mol/mol mol/mol j/kmol  1500 3,099052E+08 1,613434E11 4,016750E06 9,999960E01 4,059487E+07 1600 2,966571E+08 2,064386E10 1,436787E05 9,999856E01 4,426023E+07 1700 2,833782E+08 1,961251E09 4,428503E05 9,999557E01 4,795738E+07 1800 2,700722E+08 1,453539E08 1,205555E04 9,998794E01 5,169142E+07 1900 2,567419E+08 8,738115E08 2,955593E04 9,997044E01 5,547314E+07 2000 2,433901E+08 4,396156E07 6,628154E04 9,993372E01 5,932229E+07 2100 2,300190E+08 1,898381E06 1,376869E03 9,986231E01 6,327171E+07 2200 2,166307E+08 7,183696E06 2,676652E03 9,973233E01 6,737193E+07 2300 2,032269E+08 2,423293E05 4,910594E03 9,950894E01 7,169594E+07 2400 1,898092E+08 7,391992E05 8,560789E03 9,914392E01 7,634348E+07 2500 1,763790E+08 2,063620E04 1,426250E02 9,857375E01 8,144400E+07 2600 1,629375E+08 5,326311E04 2,281402E02 9,771860E01 8,715727E+07 2700 1,494859E+08 1,282083E03 3,517089E02 9,648291E01 9,367058E+07 2800 1,360252E+08 2,899531E03 5,241704E02 9,475830E01 1,011911E+08 2900 1,225561E+08 6,200781E03 7,570566E02 9,242943E01 1,099320E+08 3000 1,090795E+08 1,260921E02 1,061630E01 8,938370E01 1,200918E+08 H(T)=n_O * H_O(T) + n_O2 * H_O2(T) H(T) can be expressed as polynom with the coefficients A0 2,604167E+08 A1 7,824454E+05 A2 9,267354E+02 A3 6,026670E01 A4 2,153371E04 A5 3,970711E08 A6 2,887158E12 cp(T) can be calculated from H(T) as cp=d(H(T)H0)/dT. H0 is enthalpy at standard (reference) state. This will get us the coefficients for the modified cp polynom A0 7,824454E+05 A1 1,853471E+03 A2 1,808001E+00 A3 8,613484E04 A4 1,985356E07 A5 1,732295E11 The return value of cp is j/kmol/K, devide the coefficients by the molecular weight of oxygen to get j/kg/K. Comparing the modified polynom from above (cp1) with the one from the fluent manual (cp2) we get a good agreement between 1500K and 2700K, largest deviation at 2400K is 8%. T cp1 cp2 (cp1cp2)/cp2*100% K j/kg/K j/kg/K %  1500 1147,9 1152,0 0,360025687 1600 1149,1 1160,9 1,017681849 1700 1159,1 1166,8 0,654172328 1800 1173,6 1170,3 0,28382029 1900 1192,2 1173,6 1,584541084 2000 1217,4 1180,1 3,156017009 2100 1254,6 1196,0 4,905009001 2200 1311,0 1229,7 6,613965544 2300 1394,9 1293,4 7,849970668 2400 1515,5 1403,5 7,979328925 2500 1681,5 1581,1 6,35188464 2600 1901,4 1853,3 2,596428625 2700 2182,0 2253,7 3,181389523 2800 2528,2 2823,6 10,46189678 2900 2942,3 3612,9 18,56272308 3000 3423,2 4681,4 26,87600196 It should be mentioned that gas dissociation is usually pressure dependend so you will get different polynoms for higher pressures. The Rose and Cooper values are probably calcualted for 1 atm, applying them to higher pressures may lead to errors. RoM 

November 24, 2005, 07:02 
Re: increasing the specific heat capacity

#3 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Thanks a lot for your extended answer. I have asked Fluent for the pressure and temperature applicability range for Rose and Cooper specific heat polynomials, but I have not received good answer. I will try to find the book "Technical Data on Fuel".
In this moment I have some additional questions: Why these polynomials could be applicable in both two cases: 1. when I am using global reaction mechanism with one steps; 2. when I am using global reaction mechanism with two steps. And other question is following. Now I am using methaneair2step finiterate/eddydissipation model with methaneair2step mechanism: 2 CH4 +3 O2 > 2 CO + 4 H2O 2 CO + O2 > 2 CO2 Why should I use modified Cp of CH4? And next question: I could add third global reaction 2CO2 > 2CO + O2 to take into account dissociation of CO2. Should I use modified Cp of CO2 in this case too? In other words is this reaction represent the main path of CO2 dissociation? If yes, maybe I should use normal Cp of CO2 in this case? Thanks in advice. 

November 24, 2005, 08:09 
Re: increasing the specific heat capacity

#4 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I would not use extended reaction mechanisms with the eddydissipation model. Its basically a "mixed is burnt model" so it will not catch species that are far from equilibrium (CO) or intermediate species (O,H,OH,HO2...) correct. It is best used with one global reaction mech and if the flame temperatur comes out too high, you can use the corrected cp polynoms. I would use the polynoms for O2, CO2(includes dissociation CO2>CO+O), H2O(important!) others (CH4,N2,CO) are not that important. I use this approach for CH4 combustion and it worked well so far.
Good Luck, RoM 

November 24, 2005, 10:12 
Re: increasing the specific heat capacity

#5 
Guest
Posts: n/a

You are right. It seems common practice to use onestep mechanism with eddydissipation model, but I have seen that it is enough common practice to use 2step mechanism with finiterate/eddydissipation model. I am using 2step mechanism with finiterate/eddydissipation model as mechanism with minimum complexity that can provide us some minimum information about CO concentration at combustion chamber exit. I was thinking to add third global reaction controlled only by temperature but not eddydissipation, increasing constant A for that reaction. Maybe the same should be done for second reaction. I have seen in some work that "after the mixture is ignited and carbon monoxide is present in the flame, the rate of the reaction 2 does not depend on the eddy breakup because both O2 and CO are present at the same location. Thus, reaction 2 is taken to be controlled by chemical kinetic rate at all times by setting the coefficient A = 10e5." What do you think about? Thanks in advice.


November 30, 2005, 03:46 
Re: increasing the specific heat capacity

#6 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I did some calculation with sandia d flame and the methan/air 2 step mech from fluent. The results where not very promising. The location of the flame peak at x/d=40 is predicted correct but the temperature always came out to high (about 200K) even with the Rose/Cooper cp polynomials. Modified values for A und B could not correct this behaviour and lead to stiff chemistry. I think adding more reactions wont improve the calculation but didnt had the time to test it.
I wont vote completly against the modified A/B values. I have seen this approach in the "Coal Combustion with Eddy Break Up (EBU) Model" tutorial from fluent and it seems to work. Do you have access to the paper "Peters and Weber (1997), Mathematical Modeling of a 2.4 MW Swirling, Pulverized Coal Flame, Combustion Science and Technology, 122, 131."? I searched some online eprints but didnt found it. RoM 

November 30, 2005, 10:09 
Re: increasing the specific heat capacity

#7 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Unfortunately, I have not access to the paper "Peters and Weber (1997), Mathematical Modeling of a 2.4 MW Swirling, Pulverized Coal Flame, Combustion Science and Technology, 122, 131."
I don't like the idea to change A/B values too. Maybe the EDC model has less casedepended constants? If yes, maybe it has some sense trying to use appropriated global 2 (or 35) step mechanism with EDC? Unfortunately I have not references reported in the Fluent manual related EBM and EDC: 215 B. F. Magnussen and B. H. Hjertager. On mathematical models of turbulent combustion with special emphasis on soot formation and combustion. In 16th Symp. (Int'l.) on Combustion. The Combustion Institute, 1976. 214 B. F. Magnussen. On the Structure of Turbulence and a Generalized Eddy Dissipation Concept for Chemical Reaction in Turbulent Flow. Nineteeth AIAA Meeting, St. Louis, 1981. 118 I. R. Gran and B. F. Magnussen. A numerical study of a bluffbody stabilized diffusion flame. part 2. influence of combustion modeling and finiterate chemistry. Combustion Science and Technology, 119:191, 1996. Do you have this works? It would be useful to read these work to understand the range of conditions (P, T, equivalent ratio &hellip where these models with constant reported by Fluent could work. The same valid for methaneair2step mechanism. What is the range of conditions (P, T, equivalent ratio &hellip where this mechanism with constant reported by Fluent could work? In addition, I have noted that second reaction of the mechanism for finiterate/eddydissipation option is differ from second reaction of the mechanism for finiterate (used with EDC) option. In later case the reaction rate depends on H2O concentration, but in former it doesn't depend on H2O concentration. Is it correct? If yes, why? 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Water subcooled boiling  Attesz  CFX  7  January 5, 2013 04:32 
Constant velocity of the material  Sas  CFX  15  July 13, 2010 08:56 
Simulation of a single bubble with a VOFmethod  Suzzn  CFX  18  October 2, 2009 04:18 
mass flow in is not equal to mass flow out  saii  CFX  2  September 18, 2009 08:07 
TwoPhase Buoyant Flow Issue  Miguel Baritto  CFX  4  August 31, 2006 12:02 