CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

Are combustion models actually any use?

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   September 19, 2005, 04:45
Default Re: Are combustion models actually any use?
  #21
Tom
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
>Well, just to spice it up... there is an implicit assumption >in your assessment that 2+4=6. I can argue that 2+4=sqrt(20)

Not a very good example - two vectors added together give another vector which implies what you mean is |2i + 4j|=sqrt(20). The 2i and 2j are different entities and so when added give the vector 2i+4j whose length is sqrt(20).

A better example would be to use modulo arithmetic (e.g. take the remainder after division by 5 of the result) then

2 + 4 = 1 and 2*4 = 3.

This type of calculation preserves all the usual rules for addition and multiplication found in algebra.
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2005, 16:34
Default Re: Are combustion models actually any use?
  #22
Adrin Gharakhani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
You're still thinking in the same "space" with the modulo example, even though your example, nevertheless, proves (part of) my point.

>>two vectors added together give another vector

Just like two scalars added together give another scalar? Imagine that! Is adding two apples with three oranges acceptable? But this is clearly a scalar field operation...

Again, we go back to the point of the implicit assumptions. Anyway, I only meant to interject a "caution" statement to the discussions on this thread, which is sort of one-sided )

Adrin Gharakhani
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 24, 2005, 11:37
Default Re: Are combustion models actually any use?
  #23
Bak_Flow
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi,

This is an interesting topic and some very good points have been made!

It is interesting to note that over the years I have seen the same question arise for any of the individual "tough problems" out there....turbulence modeling, radiation, aero-acoustics, rarefied flows, etc

Since most industrial combustion systems are high Reynolds number, then often the limiting issue is the capability of modeling turbulent combustion, which really is a specific case of closing the turbulence problem.

The main issue in practical RANS combustion modeling is getting sources in the equations in terms of mean temp, mass fractions, etc,...ie the closure problem.

The often surprising ability of simple turbulence models for other applications (cold flows with no reactions) leaves people very optimistic when first looking at combustion modeling. Even a very simple model such as eddy dissipation (which reduces the whole complexity of combustion locally to one time scale: k/eps) looks promising when applied to an appropriate problem.

However, many combustion applications (or what we need to know in a specific application ie NOx, peak temp, local features, etc) do not fit nicely in the range of applicability of the simple models. If you do not get those sources in the closure right.....you will get USELESS results!

People are in general, overly optimistic about what the simple models can provide because they do not understand what is at the heart of the problem.

The research community, clearly undrstands the challenges in the problem and has responded with an abundant number of models which are often very complex, possibly not widely applicable nor robust in a solver. The industrial community, however, does not have the resources or knowledge to use these models...is there a way out of this cycle????

I have really been amazed over the years just how many industrial simulations are being done with k-eps and eddy dissipation...particularly in north america. Europe seems to be a bit more daring? And yes I have seen some really useful and insightful results....and some that are totally inappropriate. The trick is that the number of people who can tell the difference (in a predictive sense not just after they have compared to the rig)....is pretty small!

So yes the models are of use in predictions if your exectations do not exceed your ability to "self judge" your simulations.

Regards,

Bak_Flow

  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Different combustion models in two domains-how? tony CFX 3 October 2, 2007 13:13
Enable combustion models Swarup FLUENT 2 September 23, 2005 07:29
Review ignition models for ICE combustion Berny Main CFD Forum 0 June 3, 2005 04:34
changing combustion models in cfx 4.4 dj CFX 0 February 16, 2004 03:10
COMBUSTION MODELS stefano CD-adapco 1 May 15, 2003 07:09


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:50.