International Journal of

Turbomachinery
Propulsion and Power

Article
Numerical Steady and Transient Evaluation of a Confined Swirl
Stabilized Burner
Federica Farisco *,† , Luisa Castellanos , Jakob Woisetschläger and Wolfgang Sanz

Institute of Thermal Turbomachinery and Machine Dynamics— ITTM, Graz University of Technology,
8010 Graz, Austria; [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (J.W.);
[email protected] (W.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +43-660-2622508
† Current address: German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Combustion Technology,
70569 Stuttgart, Germany.

Abstract: Lean premixed combustion technology became state of the art in recent heavy-duty gas
turbines and aeroengines. In combustion chambers operating under fuel-lean conditions, unsteady
heat release can augment pressure amplitudes, resulting in component engine damages. In order to
achieve deeper knowledge concerning combustion instabilities, it is necessary to analyze in detail
combustion processes. The current study supports this by conducting a numerical investigation
of combustion in a premixed swirl-stabilized methane burner with operating conditions taken
from experimental data that were recently published. It is a follow-up of a previous paper from
Farisco et al., 2019 where a different combustion configuration was studied. The commercial code
ANSYS Fluent has been used with the aim to perform steady and transient calculations via Large Eddy
Simulation (LES) of the current confined methane combustor. A validation of the numerical data has





 been performed against the available experiments. In this study, the numerical temperature profiles
Citation: Farisco, F.; Castellanos, L.;
have been compared with the measurements. The heat release parameter has been experimentally
Woisetschläger, J.; Sanz, W. and numerically estimated in order to point out the position of the main reaction zone. Several
Numerical Steady and Transient turbulence and combustion models have been investigated with the aim to come into accord with the
Evaluation of a Confined Swirl experiments. The outcome showed that the combustion model Flamelet Generated Manifold (FGM)
Stabilized Burner. Int. J. Turbomach. with the k-ω turbulence model was able to correctly simulate flame lift-off.
Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijtpp6040046 Keywords: confined swirl stabilized burner; CFD; combustion

Academic Editor: Michael Pfitzner

Received: 6 August 2021

1. Introduction
Accepted: 24 November 2021
Published: 30 November 2021
The correct modelling of the flow field in lean premixed combustors requires a deep
understanding of the phenomena directly resulting in instability. It is, therefore, necessary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
to know the thermo-chemical processes that are influencing the main reaction zone in order
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
to obtain more insight into the prediction of lean combustion.
published maps and institutional affil-
The flow field in swirl-stabilized combustors was investigated and explained in dif-
iations. ferent papers (see [1,2]). The first cited work reviewed the knowledge gained on vortex
breakdown over the past 45 years. The paper was divided in three subsections (experimen-
tal, numerical and theoretical) where a clear structure of the flow pattern was underlined.
The next cited study [2] described in detail the main parameters influencing industrial
dry-low emission (DLE) swirl-stabilized combustors. The authors outlined also the progress
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
concerning numerical investigations of swirl-stabilized combustion.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
One of the most common method used for the measurement of heat release concerns
distributed under the terms and
the analysis of OH* radical chemiluminescence in the flame [3,4]. A large amount of
conditions of the Creative Commons
research [5–8] has been carried out to provide an overview of different techniques applied
Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) license to analyze the flame dynamics. Chemiluminescence has proved to be an efficient method for
(https://creativecommons.org/ investigating global heat release fluctuations (see [9,10]). Balachandran et al. [9] performed
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). measurements of heat release with OH* and CH* chemiluminescence pointing out that

Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijtpp6040046 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijtpp

Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 2 of 18

the global heat release estimated for both chemiluminescence parameters was in good
agreement with respect to magnitude and phase. The work of Greiffenhagen et al. [10]
investigated Laser Interferometric Vibrometry (LIV) as an addition to chemiluminescence in
order to analyze heat release perturbations in the flame. Laser Interferometric Vibrometry
(LIV) records directly the time derivative of density fluctuations along the laser beam path
in unconfined and confined flames. Local measurements are obtained from integrals data
by tomography or Abel inversion (Greiffenhagen et al. [11]). Numerical RANS (Reynolds
Averaged Navier–Stokes) simulations have been presented in [12] for the same geometry
analyzed in [10].
Detailed models and up to date experimental techniques are required to estimate
combustor capabilities [13]. In the previous paper [13], the authors underlined the im-
portance of an optimal three-step global reaction mechanism for methane-air mixtures
that were used in their numerical analysis. Review papers by [13–15] present recent nu-
merical progress related to the evaluation of swirl-stabilized flames. In [14] few swirl
stabilized burner configurations have been investigated by comparing several turbulence
models such as the standard k-e model, the RNG k-e model and the Realizable k-e model.
The authors observed that the calculations predicted correctly the experimental profile
shapes; in particular, the application of RNG k-e carried out a slight advantage compared
to Realizable k-e.
The work of [15] described the derivation of a Flamelet Generated Manifold model
and its use for turbulent flames with Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and RANS. The flame
front was modeled in these cases through the Probability Density Function (PDF) approach
that takes into consideration non-equilibrium aspects [16]. The results pointed out that this
chemical method is an accurate technique for modeling premixed combustion. In the work
of [16], the authors proved also that the transient Scale Adaptive Simulation (SAS) model
was capable for depicting the trademark of the unsteady flame in a more accurate manner
compared to RANS.
However, accurate RANS flow simulations represent a standard tool applied within
industrial design process suitable to reproduce the main flow characteristics using less
computational time compared to LES or Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) methods.
This paper combines an analysis of several turbulence and combustion models of
diverse complexity. The model’s capability to reproduce the characteristics of the investi-
gated combustor is studied. The CFD code Ansys Fluent v2020 R1 is used in the current
study and is applied as combustion models with respect to the Eddy Dissipation Model
(EDM) developed by Magnussen and Hjeertager [17], Steady Laminar Flamelet model
(SLF) [18] and Flamelet Generated Manifold (FGM).
The scope of this work is to identify the most accurate combustion and turbulence
model able to predict the correct behavior of the investigated combustor by using the
estimation of temperature contours and species concentration.
This study is a follow-up of the paper of Farisco et al. [12] where a steady numerical
analysis was performed with a different combustor compared to the current confined one
in order to see if the results can be improved.
The current RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes) numerical procedure is the
same compared to [12]. Whereas in [12], the unconfined burner could not be correctly
reproduced by any turbulence or combustion models, in the current confined case, the sim-
ulations will show a better agreement with the experimental data available. Furthermore,
in this study, the results obtained by an unsteady investigation via Large Eddy Simulation
(LES) of the confined combustor are also included. The outcomes of this research could be
used as baseline for further industrial applications. Nevertheless, more research needs to
be performed with a focus on understanding the complex flow effects and limitations of
combustion models.
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 3 of 18

2. Combustor Domain Investigated

The numerical domain represents the geometry used for the experiments. The data
were obtained on a lean, swirl-stabilized methane combustor with a cylindrical confinement
under atmospherically conditions. A quartzglass cylinder was used with a height of
210 mm, an outer diameter of 120 mm and a wall thickness of 3 mm. The thermal power of
the combustor was 3.44 kW and the mean equivalence ratio had the value of 0.88. Figure 1
presents the configuration of the confined configuration investigated. The burner (outer
diameter of D = 18 mm) consists of a premixed axial and tangential line and a cooling air
supply (see Greiffenhagen et al., 2020 [19]).The tangential air is premixed with the fuel
and is then transferred into the inner area of the methane burner by a swirler consisting
of 32 feed lines with a tangential alignment. The fuel-oxidizer mixture streams swirl into
the combustion chamber, and it is ignited. The axial and radial pressure gradients that
are produced by this swirling flow into the combustion chamber, create a recirculation
zone which reduces the turbulent flow speed of the injected mixture compared to the
flame speed. This effect operates as a stabilizing mechanism where the flame can burn
at a fixed location, and additionally it guarantees that sufficient heat is available to ignite
the upcoming fuel-oxidizer mixture. A swirl number value of 0.53 is obtained, taking into
account the formulation of Candel et al. (2014) [20].

Figure 1. Schematic burner section.

Swirl Flow Structure

To clearly understand the outcomes of this work, a short description of the flow
structures present in a swirl stabilized flame is provided. The flow field produces (see
Figure 2) an outer recirculation zone (ORZ) that is a toroidal recirculating area due to
the fast evolution of the nozzle into the combustor; an inner recirculation zone (IRZ or
vortex breakdown) related to the vortex breakdown characterized by stagnation points and
reversing flows that increases flame stabilization; and the high velocity annular fluid jet
delimited by the inner and outer shear layers.Velocity perturbations modify the speed of
this annular jet, resulting in oscillations of the flame. Another common type of a coherent
vortex in swirl flames is the precessing vortex core (PVC) (see Figure 3). It develops when a
central vortex core starts to precess around the axis of symmetry at a certain frequency [21].
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 4 of 18

Figure 2. Vortex core overview. (left) current combustor; (right) sketch of flow patterns in a confined,
premixed swirl stabilized combustor [22].

Figure 3. Vortex structure of PVC [21].

3. Experimental Setup
Experimental data are taken from a published study (see [19]). For more details
concerning the LIV measurement technique and equipment, refer to papers [11,19].

4. Mesh Generation
Several meshes are performed within this work, and a mesh independency study is
carried out. The commercial tools ANSYS mesher and ICEM are used in order to generate
meshes. Figure 4 underlines the numerical domain of the confined combustor analyzed in
the simulations.
The coarsest mesh is obtained with a first cell-center positioned at a non-dimensional
wall distance of y+ = 3. It consists of 4,165,157 cells, and it is refined in order to investigate
the sensitivity of the numerical results. In addition to the coarsest mesh, two other refined
meshes are generated. The one with y+ = 2 has 1.5 times the number of nodes in each
segment, and the y+ = 1 mesh has two times the number of nodes. However, mesh
independency is obtained with the coarsest mesh used. Simulations with cold flow and
the RNG k-e and k-ω turbulence models are performed with all meshes analyzed. The
swirl number and the axial velocity profiles are used to investigate the behavior of different
refined meshes.
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 5 of 18

Figure 4. Sketch of the combustor and computational domain.

The simplified form of the swirl number equation is taken according to the exper-
iments [8,20]. The same method for the calculation of the swirl number applied in the
experiments is used also in the numerics to obtain a more accurate comparison between the
two approaches. For the swirl number analysis, the simplified swirl number is calculated
at two different distances, respectively: a quarter and half of the inlet diameter D. In order
to obtain it, velocity profiles are extracted from line sampling in the x and y directions. The
integration of absolute velocity values is performed by using a Riemann sum. The results
of this integration are used for calculating the swirl number. A value of swirl number is
obtained for an x-parallel line of samples and for the y-parallel line, then an averaging of
both values is performed (as shown in Equations (1)–(3)). The suggestions shown in the
literature [7] have been used to select the burner exit diameter as an integral boundary.
D
vwx2 dx
R 2
2 0
Sx = R D
(1)
D 2
0 w2 xdx

D
uwy2 dy
R 2
2 0
Sy = R D
(2)
D 2
0 w2 ydy
S x + Sy
S= (3)
2
For the cold flow simulations, the averaged swirl numbers obtained with the coarsest mesh
y+ = 3 and with the finer mesh y+ = 1 with both RNG k-e and k-ω turbulence models are
presented in Tables 1 and 2 at both D/4 and D/2 calculated distances. It can be observed
that the higher swirl numbers are reached by the coarsest mesh with y+ = 3. Figure 5 shows
the axial velocity profile on the middle plane for the k-e model with y+ = 3 mesh (on the left
side) and k-e with y+ = 1 mesh (on the right side). This parameter underlines, for the k-e
model with the y+ = 3 mesh, a flow type II according with respect to the nomenclature of
the International Flame Research Foundation. This case presents a V-shaped or M-shaped
expansion of the flame with an angle of about 40◦ , pointing out a similar trend as observed
in the measurements (for more details see the section “Results”). Instead, the axial velocity
profile for the k-e with the y+ = 1 mesh shows a type of flow quite different and more
similar to a flow type I. For this reason, the coarsest mesh with y+ = 3 is chosen because the
swirl is slightly better conserved along the burner exit region with values slightly higher
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 6 of 18

and closer to the experiments, and it guarantees less numerical time compared to the finer
meshes generated.

Figure 5. Axial velocity field comparison between k-e y+ = 3 (left) and k-e y+ = 1 (right).

Table 1. Cold flow case with y+ = 3.

y+ = 3 k-e k-ω
S − D/4 0.5684 0.4548
S − D/2 0.53625 0.54065

Table 2. Cold flow case with y+ = 1.

y+ = 1 k-e k-ω
S − D/4 0.48035 0.4278
S − D/2 0.43935 0.40995

A detail of the mesh used for the simulations is shown in Figure 6. A hybrid mesh is
proposed for a better resolution of the domain. In order to decrease computational time, a
reduced domain consisting of the entire hexahedral cylindrical exit burner is adopted for
the combustion simulations.

Figure 6. View of the chosen mesh.

The cell structure applied in the generated meshes is presented in Figure 6. In the area
where the flame occurs, which is influenced by high velocity and temperature gradients,
hexahedral cells are used to ensure high numerical reliability. The hex-cells produce
reduced numerical dissipation compared to the tetrahedral cell shape, seeing that they are
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 7 of 18

aligned with the flow direction and they decrease the number of cells (the reader is referred
to [13]). Due to the fact that the region inside the burner is represented by a configuration
with the swirler consisting of small tubes, it is modelled using tetrahedral cells. This mesh
is also used in the transient simulation. An approximate estimation for the integral length
scale l0 could be evaluated using k, e and ω values from the RANS simulations. In order
to resolve an eddy with a length scale l, it is necessary to have a couple of cells in each
direction. Then, a resolution of the eddies with sizes larger than half size of the integral
length scale (l0 /2) is required to obtain 80% of the turbulent kinetic energy (as stated
in [23,24]). Approximately five cells are needed across the integral length scale l0 [23], and
the current mesh is also used in the unsteady simulation presented this feature.

5. Numerical Approach
In this work, the RANS numerical method is applied through the CFD code ANSYS
Fluent to identify the main flow features within the cold flow and combustion processes.
The simulations are performed in such a manner that the effects of the turbulence model
are isolated. The SIMPLE method is used pressure–velocity coupling. The segregated
solver is applied since partially premixed models do not allow the use of the coupled
one. Concerning spatial discretization, the second order upwind scheme is preferred
over the quadratic upwind scheme QUICK for the turbulent kinetic energy, momentum
and specific dissipation rate in order to ensure a smoother simulation trend. The Peclet
number is calculated as the ratio of the hyperbolic part of the Navier–Stokes equations
relative to the parabolic part and using the first cell height for each mesh elaborated. The
minimum value computed is 70, which indicates a considerable amount of advection.
Pressure discretization type PRESTO is used. The Reynolds number 2554 is calculated
based on inlet conditions. The convergence obtained with several parameters, such as
velocity, temperature, CH4 and CO2 species, is detected through monitor points that are
positioned at few locations close to the burner’s exit.
FGM with premixed flamelets approach is also applied for transient simulation since it
shows accurate results in RANS simulations and ensures reduced computational time. The
SIMPLE approach for pressure-velocity coupling is considered. For LES, the Subgrid-Scale
model (SGS) Kinetic Energy Transport is applied since it ensures lower computational cost,
and it should be suitable for flows with strong recirculation zones. For the LES numerical
simulation, a time step of ∆t = 0.000025 s is taken with a time duration up to 0.75 s.

5.1. Boundary Conditions Applied

The numerical boundary conditions are derived by the measurements in order to
ensure a validation of the numerics against the experimental data available. The mean
equivalence ratio of Φ = λ1 = 0.88 (λ set as fixed air excess parameter) and a constant thermal
power of Pth = 3.44 kW are considered for the current numerical study. For cold flow calcu-
lations, the density is maintained constant, while it has an effect in the combustion process.
The following values are taken for the mass flows: ṁCH4 = 0.068 g/s, ṁ ax = 0.705 g/s,
ṁtan = 0.628 g/s and ṁcooling = 1.2 g/s, matching the experimental values. The domain is
specified by setting mass flow and total temperature at the inlets and atmospheric pressure
at the burner’s outlet. Concerning the smaller region used for combustion simulations,
one inlet mass flow is assigned in the axial direction consisting of premixed fuel, axial
and tangential air. For the LES case, a forced response approach has been also used in
the simulations, imposing a pressure wave excitation at the inlet of the combustor. The
signal applied is a sine signal. Due to the fact that at a perturbation frequency of 225 Hz,
a sharp peak of thermo-acoustic oscillations was recorded during the measurements, the
same excitation frequency has been used also in the simulations. The formula applied for
the mass flow fluctuations at the geometry inlet is shown in Equation (4) .

ṁ0 = 0.001366 + 0.000035025sin(2π × 225 × t) (4)

Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 8 of 18

The fluctuating mass flow value of 0.000035025 represents almost 3% of the constant
mass flow term 0.001366. Pressure signals have been recorded at various points along
the flow path during numerical calculations. The walls of the combustor have been set
as diabatic taking the same glass temperature measured in the experiments. The Discrete
Ordinates (DO) model is also applied to include the thermal radiation. Enhanced wall
treatment is adopted as model for the flow near the wall (see [24,25]) assigning the value
y+ = 3 along the burner walls.

5.2. Turbulence-Chemistry Models

Many elementary reactions and species are included within the methane-air combus-
tion. In order to lower computational effort in CFD combustion calculations, the species
number has to be reduced. In order to describe the chemistry of methane-air mixtures, sev-
eral reaction mechanisms are available in literature. The two-step mechanism introduced
by Westbrook [26] is applied for the ED model in this work. The GRI-3.0 detailed mecha-
nism of methane-air combustion is also adopted for the cases with flamelets formulation.
This last chemical method is described by Smith et al. [27] for hydrocarbon combustion
and is further verified in the literature.
Within the current study, the Eddy Dissipation Model was analyzed, and the outcomes
are compared against FGM and SLF flamelet approaches.
Laminar flames are used to model the turbulent flame front in the flamelet formu-
lations. Density, temperature and species concentration are obtained as results of the
equations in every location of the laminar flamelet main reaction zone. The mixture frac-
tion and scalar dissipation are used as main parameters to define the concentrations of fuel
and oxidant. A Probability Density Function (PDF) combines instantaneous temperature
and species values obtained from flamelet calculation with the turbulent flow [24]. For
this study, both premixed and diffusion flamelets are selected to calculate the flamelet
manifold. Finite Rate is used for the progress variable source. The turbulence-chemistry
interaction approach in FGM is described by the variances of the progress variable and
mixture fraction.

6. Results
6.1. Cold Flow
For the cold flow case, a converged solution with RNG k-e turbulence model is
obtained. RNG k-e turbulence model with enhanced wall treatment is chosen because it
is suited low Reynolds flows. Figure 7 shows the velocity magnitude profile for the cold
flow along the middle plane. The radial section of the velocity field is introduced for all
cold flow and combustion simulations due to its axial symmetry (x = 0 burner axis). With
a similar but unconfined burner geometry, different turbulence and combustion models
were already investigated in Fluent by Farisco et al. [12].

Figure 7. Velocity magnitude profile for the cold flow case with RNG k-e turbulence model.
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 9 of 18

The swirl-induced jet opening at the exit burner area produces a narrow shape of
the velocity magnitude profile. The highest velocity values of around U = 7.5 m/s are
observed up to d = 10 mm above the burner. The velocity in the cold flow is reduced to
U = 3 m/s beyond d = 15 mm above the burner, due to the lack of combustion processes
that would cause a gas expansion in this region with enhanced absolute and tangential
velocities. The numerical cold flow velocity profile is placed in line with the central
axis in contrast with the cases with combustion. This is related to the fact that in the
hot cases, the coming flow is accelerated and diverted at the flame front. The density
differences between reactants and products and the entering swirl angle flow influence
this flow deflection in the combustion process. For the cold flow simulation with RNG k-e
turbulence model, the averaged swirl number obtained is presented in Table 1. Figure 8a
presents the cold flow axial velocity profile along the middle plane and at the burner exit
(inlet plane for the combustion simulations). In Figure 8b, the 2D axial velocity profile
is shown along a line taken at the burner exit plane. Figure 9a underlines the velocity
magnitude contour obtained along a z-plane 5 mm above the nozzle opening. The 2D
plot observed in Figure 9b points out the velocity trend along the black line shown in
Figure 9a on the z-plane = 5 mm. The velocity magnitude reaches the highest values of
about 7.5 m/s in the simulations, and it represents a good approximation compared to
the measurements. The velocity magnitude U = (7.67 ± 0.03) m/s has been recorded also
in the experiments (with DANTEC Dynamics CTA module 91C10, three components at
150 kS/s, StreameWare Pro Software and DANTEC PRO Calibrator) for the cold flow case
at the same plane 5 mm above the nozzle opening. For this reason this current result is
used as input for the following combustion simulations.

Figure 8. Axial velocity profile for the cold flow case with RNG k-e turbulence model (a) and axial profile 2D plot set at the
inlet of the combustion simulations (b).
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 10 of 18

Figure 9. Velocity magnitude profile for the cold flow case with RNG k-e turbulence model at the z-plane = 5 mm (a) and
velocity magnitude profile 2D plot along the black line on z-plane = 5 mm (b).

6.2. Hot Flow Using Combustion Models

Concerning the combustion models, the Eddy Dissipation Model (EDM), the Steady
Flamelet (SF) partially premixed model and Flamelet Generated Manifold (FGM) model
with both premixed and diffusion flamelets approaches are applied. Each one of the
combustion models is used in combination with the following turbulence models: RNG
k-e with enhanced wall treatment, k-ω and k-ω SST with low Reynolds corrections.
Table 3 points out the swirl number values calculated for all combustion and turbu-
lence models used. The Steady Flamelet approach shows overall the lowest swirl number
values compared with all turbulence models. Both EDM and FGM present similar swirl
numbers for the k-e and SST models with lower values than in the experimental case.
EDM and FGM with both premixed and diffusion flamelets with k-ω turbulence model
conserve swirls along the entire axial direction, showing an accurate approximation with
experimental values. For this reason, velocity contour plots for EDM and FGM are shown
in this study. FGM with premixed flamelets is chosen instead of FGM with diffusion
flamelets because both models did not show substantial differences.

Table 3. Swirl number for the combustion and turbulence models analyzed.

Eddy Dissipation k-e k-ω SST

S 0.38505 0.605785 0.3929925
Steady Flamelet k-e k-ω SST
S 0.36569 0.27741 0.36799
FGM Premixed
k-e k-ω SST
Flamelet
S 0.378645 0.5313975 0.3744125
FGM Diffusion
k-e k-ω SST
Flamelet
S 0.3799175 0.523415 0.374775

Combustion data were available and comparisons with experiments were carried out
for temperature and heat release contours. As first, the temperature and heat release con-
tours for the FGM are presented, because the swirl numbers calculated for this combustion
model and k-ω represent the closest approximation to the experimental values. Figure 10
shows the numerical temperature profiles for LES and for FGM with both k-e and k-ω
compared with the experimental data in Figure 10a. The temperature contours for FGM
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 11 of 18

and k-ω SST turbulence models are omitted because they present a similar behavior and
swirl number value compared to the k-e model.

Figure 10. Flow comparison-temperature profile shown for (a) experiments, (b) FGM premixed with RNG k-e, (c) FGM
premixed with k-ω and (d) LES.

In order to obtain a temperature profile more accurate and similar to the experiments
in the numerics, a radiation model was added to the already converged FGM simulation
with premixed flamelet. In order to define which radiation model to use, the optical
thickness parameter was taken into account:

OpTh = αL (5)

where α = (−ln(1 − e))/S stands for a representative absorption, and L is the characteristic
length of the combustor. Domain emissivity is represented by e, and S is a geometric param-
eter of the domain (S = V/A) with V being the total volume of the domain, and A being
the total surface of the domain. After evaluating the optical thickness as OpTh = 0.049046
(the emissivity taken from the quartz glass that was used for the confinement in the
experiments), model Discrete Ordinates (DOs) were chosen since it requires OpTh < 1.
The numerical temperature fields present maximum values that are higher compared
to the experimental investigation. The reason could be related to the simulated combustion
process where simplified and limited chemical reactions need to be taken into account
due to computational efforts. During the simulations, it was observed that the radiation
model DO decreased the temperature to about 100 ◦ C compared to the case with adiabatic
walls. Moreover, in the measurements, the energy loss due to radiation was only 3% (see
as reference page 323 of [10]). For this reason, it would be more effective in correctly
simulating heat loss through the walls. In this study, a fixed temperature wall with value
taken from the experiments was set, but it would be necessary to perform a Conjugate
Heat Transfrer (CHT) analysis as the next step.
The main difference that is observed between Figure 10b,c is related to the flame shape.
The k-e model produces a V-flame attached, and the k-ω model generates a detached flame
with M-shape. All simulations present a flow type II generating a V-shaped or M-shaped
flame with angle of about 45◦ pointing out a similar trend as in the experiments shown in
Figure 10a.
The averaged temperature profile for LES in Figure 10d shows also a flame with an
overall accurate shape and trend compared to the experiments. The region located at an
axial distance from the burner above d = 10–20 mm shows the highest temperature values
compared to the experiments. This area represents the main reaction zone.
As already shown in the section “Swirl flow structure,” due to velocity and pressure,
differences significant vortex structures form, and a vortex spiral evolves from the shear
layer. This is related to the Kelvin–Helmoltz instability. This vortex turns around the
centerline before breaking into small fragments. Figure 11 (left) presents a slice cut along
the symmetry axis with temperature as contour for the LES simulation and isosurfaces at a
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 12 of 18

temperature of T = 1600 ◦ C. Figure 11 (right) presents a slice cut along the symmetry axis
with vorticity magnitude as contour for LES and isosurfaces at a vorticity magnitude of
ω = 2000 s−1 . LES provides better accuracy in terms of larger vortex structure resolution,
as already observed in Figure 10d. The toroidal Kelvin–Helmholtz vortices are observed
clearly around the central axis. The LES simulation presents the development of large
eddies and toroidal isosurfaces that rapidly transition into small vortex fragments.

Figure 11. Snapshot of isosurfaces at temperature T = 1600 ◦ C (left) and isovorticity surface ω = 2000 s−1 (right) for LES.

Next, the flame’s chemiluminescence is taken in order to characterize the overall

structure of the flame. The heat release in the numerics has different units compared to
OH* emission in the experiments. For this reason, a relative value in the simulations is
calculated, and a qualitative comparison between the numerical results and the experiments
can be carried out. For the simulations, the total heat release relative profile is shown in
order to allow a clearer comparison of the main reaction zone position between numerics
and experiments.
In Figure 12a, the local amplitude of OH* chemiluminescence emission is presented
as recorded for [19]. Local data were derived from experimental line-of-sight-data by Abel
transform. OH* chemiluminescence resembles heat release [28]. As already discussed
in Section 5.2, the RANS simulation results represent steady flow, and they are obtained
as the baseline for the LES simulation, where pressure fluctuations were also considered,
as in the experiments. Thus, LES represents the final numerical step that also includes a
perturbation frequency of 225 Hz. Figure 12a shows a maximum of heat release located at
about x = 8 mm. In the numerics, the total heat release that corresponds to the temperature
contour is shown for the FGM test case with both k-e and k-ω in Figure 12b,c and for
LES in Figure 12d. In LES in Figure 12d, the highest heat release values are located in a
similar position compared to the measurements. Thus, the LES simulation shows the most
accurate flow behaviour and stabilization mode compared to the experiments. Concerning
the RANS simulations, one reason that could explain the performance of the k-ω model is
related to the new formulation of the Wilcox model implemented in ANSYS Fluent that has
reduced the dependency of the model to freestream. Production terms have been added to
both the k and ω equations, which have improved the accuracy of the model for predicting
free shear flows. A low Reynolds number modification term was also enabled in this setup
for the k-ω model because the low Reynolds number term can result in a delayed onset of
the boundary layer transition and, therefore, constitute a quite accurate model for laminar
to turbulent transitions.
A RNG model was also chosen for the k-e approach because it has shown substantial
improvements over the standard model where the flow features include strong streamline
curvature, vortices and rotation. This model would provide probably the best estimation
for a strong swirl flow, whereas the present burner points out a moderate swirl.
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 13 of 18

Figure 12. Flow comparison heat release profile shown for (a) OH* chemiluminescence experiments, (b) FGM premixed
with RNG k-e, (c) FGM premixed with k-ω and (d) LES.

A progress variable and its variances are added to the mixture fraction in the nu-
merical formulation of FGM model. These included parameters can affect the location
of the flame in the numerics. It is notable that the same RANS procedure applied to an
unconfined burner resulted in much higher temperature values (see paper of Farisco et
al. [12]). This outcome could be related to fact that the solver was not able to simulate
correctly a sufficient entrainment of fresh ambient air that cools down the mixture in an
unconfined configuration.
Figures 13 and 14 present the axial and tangential velocity profiles and streamlines
for the simulations with the EDM and the three turbulence models analyzed in this study,
RNG k-e, k-ω and k-ω SST, with low Reynolds corrections. Both axial and tangential
velocity components are also shown because the swirl number depends on the ratio of
these parameters.
Figure 13 points out a similar axial velocity shape for the turbulence models k-e and
SST with higher overall values for the k-e model. The k-ω model presents the core of the
vortical structure (C) highlighted in Figure 13b located at higher axial distance from the
burner exit compared with the other two turbulence models. This behavior underlines the
flame lift-off in the k-ω model.
In Figure 14 the tangential velocity plots do not show significant differences between
the different turbulence models, highlighting the negative velocity values within the inner
recirculation zone.
A similar trend for the axial velocity contours is presented in Figure 15 for the FGM
premixed flamelet model with several turbulence models investigated. The highest veloci-
ties in FGM k-ω are reached further downstream above d = 20 mm compared to Figure 13b.
On the contrary, the other two models show the highest velocity close to the burner axis up
to d = 15 mm. This results in lower swirl numbers evaluated for the k-e and SST models
compared to k-ω. The tangential velocity component for the FGM model is omitted because
it shows the same trend that is already observed in Figure 14 for the ED model.
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 14 of 18

Figure 13. Flow comparisons-axial velocity profile shown for the combustion model ED and different
turbulence models: (a) RNG k-e, (b) k-ω and (c) SST.

Figure 14. Flow comparisons-tangential velocity profile shown for the combustion model ED and
different turbulence models: (a) RNG k-e, (b) k-ω and (c) SST.

Figure 15. Flow comparisons-axial velocity profile shown for FGM premixed and different turbulence
models: (a) RNG k-e, (b) k-ω and (c) SST.

Figure 16 shows the velocity magnitude profile for the simulations with EDM and
FGM. Figure 16a,b present the velocity magnitude contour for EDM with RNG k-e and k-ω.
The SST turbulence model is now neglected since it is a combination of the two previous
cited models, and its results did not present substantial differences compared with the
other models.
In EDM with both k-e and k-ω models, the main reaction zone is located near the
central axis along the burner exit. This can be explained by the fact that the ED model is
based on the fast chemistry approach where the reaction starts as the reactants come into
contact. The area with the lowest velocity values around the central burner axis represents
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 15 of 18

the inner recirculation zone or vortex breakdown region. K-e in Figure 16a presents higher
velocity magnitude in the range d = 5–15 mm compared to k-ω in Figure 16b.
Figure 16c,d present the absolute velocity contour for FGM model also with k-e and
k-ω. K-e model points out a similar behaviour for both combustion models ED and FGM. K-
ω model underlines in FGM a wider main reaction zone located at higher axial distance (in
the range between d = 10–25 mm) that is extended until the burner axis in Figure 16d. FGM
with k-ω shows also the core of the vortical structure (C) located at higher axial distance
from the burner exit compared to the other cases. It can be clearly observed that the
simulations show a flow of type II according to the nomenclature of the International Flame
Research Foundation with stabilization at the inner recirculation producing a V-shaped
or M-shaped expansion of the flame with an angle of 45◦ . Figure 11 taken from the study
of [19] also presents the different flow types observed in the combustor confined analysed
in the current paper compared to an unconfined case. These results were obtained via
Density Tagging Velocimetry (DVT) and show the difference in inner recirculation between
the confined flame analysed in the current paper and the unconfined flame. We observe
that the confined case has a stronger inner recirculation zone compared to the unconfined
case. This type of flow has been already observed in Figure 12a, where the position of heat
release underlines also an expansion of the flame with an angle of about 40◦ .
Both experiments and simulations show in the current confined case a type II of flow
with stabilization at the inner recirculation.

Figure 16. Velocity magnitude profile for combustion model ED with (a) RNG k-e, (b) k-ω and FGM with (c) RNG k-e and
(d) k-ω.
7. Conclusions
The commercial CFD code ANSYS Fluent is used in this investigation to analyze
a confined swirl stabilized combustor configuration. Several different turbulence and
combustion models were compared, and the numerical outcomes were validated against
available experimental data. The current study represents a follow-up work of the paper of
Farisco et al. [12], where the same RANS numerical procedure was applied to a different
unconfined combustor. In that case, no turbulence and combustion models were able to
correctly predict the type of flow and stabilization mode of the flame, and the predicted
temperature values were too high compared to the experiments.
In the present work, a better agreement was found. Steady and unsteady calculations
were carried out with the aim to validate the combustion model’s performances by examin-
ing temperature and heat release profiles. The ED model predicts the main reaction region
to be closer to the burner’s exit, and this is explained with the infinitely fast chemistry
approach used as a basis of this combustion model. The same outcome is also confirmed
by the results shown in [12] for the unconfined burner geometry.
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 16 of 18

The remarkable improvement compared to the previous analysis in [12] was found
for the coupling of the combustion model FGM with the k-ω turbulence model that could
conserve the swirl along the entire axial direction, resulting in an accurate approximation
of the experimental values.
This RANS approach and especially the LES results demonstrated the most accurate
agreement in terms of temperature and heat release profile shape with the experiments.
The same RANS procedure applied to the previous similar but unconfined burner resulted
in much higher temperature values, resulting in the conclusion that the solver is not able to
correctly simulate a sufficient entrainment of fresh ambient air that cools down the combus-
tion gases. Instead, in this study, both RANS and especially the transient simulations could
predict the main combustion features for the the current confined combustor analyzed.
In a follow-up study, an investigation will be performed in order to further decrease the
effect of backward flow at the outlet of the combustion chamber in the simulations. For this
reason, different boundary conditions at the combustor outlet will be tested next. Moreover,
an acoustic analysis of the oscillations influencing the flame and the flow field should be
performed with a more accurate method.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.F., J.W., W.S. and L.C.; methodology, L.C., F.F., W.S.
and J.W.; software, L.C. and F.F.; validation, F.F., L.C., W.S. and J.W.; formal analysis, L.C. and F.F.;
investigation, L.C. and F.F.; resources, W.S.; data curation, F.F. and L.C.; writing—original draft
preparation, F.F.; writing—review and editing, F.F., W.S., J.W. and L.C.; visualization, F.F., W.S., J.W.
and L.C.; supervision, W.S. and J.W.; project administration, W.S., J.W. and F.F.; funding acquisition,
J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The project is a Lead-Agency D-A-CH project in cooperation between Graz University of
Technology, Austria and Technische Universität Dresden, Germany, and was funded by the Austrian
Science Fund FWF within Grant No. FWF-I2544-N30. Open Access Funding by the Austrian Science
Fund (FWF).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

d Flame length above burner exit (mm)

D Burner exit diameter (mm)
fD Frequency shift of laser light (Hz)
U Velocity magnitude (m/s)
u Axial velocity component (m/s)
V Tangential velocity component (m/s)
λ Air/fuel ratio (-)
Φ Equivalence ratio (-)
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
DES Detached Eddy Simulation
DLE Dry-Low Emission
DO Discrete Ordinates
ED Eddy Dissipation
FGM Flamelet Generated Manifold
FM-DGV Frequency Modulated Doppler Global Velocimetry
IRZ Inner Recirculation Zone
LES Large Eddy Simulation
LIV Laser Interferometric Vibrometry
ORZ Outer Recirculation Zone
PDF Probability Density Function
PIV Particle Image Velocimetry
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 17 of 18

QUICK Quadratic Upstream Interpolation for Convective Kinematics;

RANS Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stoke
SAS Scale Adaptive Simulation
SLF Steady Laminar Flamelet

References
1. Lucca-Negro, O.; O’Doherty, T. Vortex breakdown: A review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2001, 27, 431–481. [CrossRef]
2. Huang, Y.; Yang, V. Dynamics and stability of lean-premixed swirl-stabilized combustion. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2009, 35,
293–364. [CrossRef]
3. Schuermans, B.B.; Guethel, H.F.; Pennell, D.; Guyot, D.; Paschereit, D.O. Thermoacoustic modeling of a gas turbine using transfer
functions measured under full engine pressure. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2010, 132, 111503. [CrossRef]
4. Peterleithner, J.; Marn, A.; Woisetschläger, J. Interferometric investigation of the thermoacoustics in a swirl stabilized methane
flame. In Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air; GT2015-42743; ASME Turbo Expo: Montreal, QC, Canada, 15–19 June 2015.
5. Sattelmayer, T.; Polifke, W. Assessment of methods for the computation of the linear stability of combustors. Combust. Sci. Technol.
2003, 175, 453–476. [CrossRef]
6. Lauer, M.R.W. Determination of the Heat Release Distribution in Turbulent Flames by Chemiluminescence Imaging. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Technology Munich, Munich, Germany, 2011.
7. Peterleithner, J.; Stadlmair, N.V.; Woisetschläger, J.; Sattelmayer, T. Analysis of measured flame transfer functions with locally
resolved density fluctuation and OH-Chemiluminescence Data. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2016, 138, 031504. [CrossRef]
8. Peterleithner, J.; Basso, R.; Heitmeir, F.; Woisetschläger, J.; Schlüssler, R.; Czarske, J.; Fischer, A. Comparison of flame transfer
functions acquired by chemiluminescence and density fluctuation. In Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air; GT2016-57485;
ASME Turbo Expo: Seoul, Korea, 13–17 June 2016.
9. Balachandran, R.; Ayoola, B.O.; Kaminski, C.; Dowling, A.P.; Mastorakos, E. Experimental investigation of the nonlinear response
of turbulent premixed flames to imposed inlet velocity fluctuations. Combust. Flame 2005, 143, 37–55. [CrossRef]
10. Greiffenhagen, F.; Peterleithner, J.; Woisetschläger, J.; Fischer, A.; Gürtler, J.; Czarske, J. Discussion of laser interferometric
vibrometry for the determination of heat release fluctuations in an unconfined swirl-stabilized flame. Combust. Flame 2018, 201,
315–327. [CrossRef]
11. Greiffenhagen, F.; Woisetschläger, J.; Gürtler, J.; Kuschmierz, R.; Czarske, J. Camera based full-field laser interferometric
vibrometry for combustion diagnostics. In Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on the Application of Laser and
Imaging Techniques to Fluid Mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal, 16–19 July 2018.
12. Farisco, F.; Notsch, P.; Prieler, R.; Greiffenhagen, F.; Woisetschlaeger, J.; Heitmeir, F.; Hochenauer, C. Numerical investigation
of a swirl stabilized methane fired burner and validation with experimental data. In Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air;
GT2019-90452; ASME Turbo Expo: Phoenix, AZ, USA, 17–21 June 2019.
13. Abou-Taouk, A.; Whiddon, R.; Sigfrid, I.R.; Eriksson, L.E. CFD Investigation of Swirl-Stabilized Flexi-Fuel Burner using
Methane-Air Mixture for Gas Turbines. In Proceedings of the Conference ISABE, Gothenburg, Sweden, 12–16 September 2011;
pp. 2011–2122.
14. Hatziapostolou, A.; Orfanoudakis, N.G.; Koukou, M.K.; Raptis, G. CFD modeling of the swirl-stabilised flame produced by a
laboratory-scale combustor. selection of the turbulence model. In Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on
Heat Transfer, Thermal Engineering and Environment, Elounda, Greece, 21–23 August 2006; pp. 83–88.
15. Van Oijen, J.A.; Donini, A.; Bastiaans, R.J.M.; ten Thije Boonkkamp, J.H.M.; de Goey, L.P.H. State-of-the-art in premixed
combustion modeling using flamelet generated manifolds. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2016, 57, 30–74. [CrossRef]
16. Puggelli, S.; Bertini, D.; Mazzei, L.; Andreini, A. Scale Adaptive Simulations of a swirl stabilized spray flame using Flamelet
Generated Manifold. Energy Procedia 2016, 101, 1143–1150. [CrossRef]
17. Magnussen, B.F.; Hjertager, B.H. On Mathematical Modelling of Turbulent Combustion with Special Enphasis on Soot Forma-
tion and Combustion. In Symposium (International) on Combustion; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1977; Volume 16,
pp. 719–729.
18. Peters, N. Laminar diffusion flamelet models in non-premixed turbulent combustion. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 1984, 10, 319–339.
[CrossRef]
19. Greiffenhagen, J.; Woisetschläger, A.; Gürtler, J.; Czarske, J. Quantitative measurement of density fluctuations with a full-field
laser interferometric vibrometer. Exp. Fluids 2020, 61, 1–15.
20. Candel, S.; Durox, D.; Schuller, T.; Bourgouin, J.; Moeck, J.P. Dynamics of swirling flames. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2014, 46,
147–173. [CrossRef]
21. Yiheng, T. Experimental and Numerical Investigations of Flames Stabilized by Swirl Flow and Bluff-Body: Flame Structures and
Flame Instabilities. Ph.D. Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, October 2017.
22. Bompelly, R.K. Lean Blowout and Its Robust Sensing. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA, May 2013.
23. ANSYS. Quick Guide to Setting Up LES-Type Simulations; ANSYS FLUENT Version 1.4; Prepared and Compiled by Aleksey
Gerasimov; ANSYS Sweden AB: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016.
24. ANSYS. ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide; ANSYS FLUENT Release 14.5; ANSYS: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2012.
Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2021, 6, 46 18 of 18

25. Tanneberger, T.; Reichel, T.G.; Krüger, O.; Terhaar, S.; Paschereit, C.O. Numerical investigation of the flow field and mixing in a
swirl-stabilized burner with a non-swirling axial jet. In ASME Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air; GT2015-43382; ASME
Turbo Expo: Montreal, QC, Canada, 15–19 June 2015.
26. WestBrook, C.K.; Dryer, F.L. Simplified reaction mechanism for the oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels in flames. Combust. Sci. Technol.
1981, 27, 31–43. [CrossRef]
27. Smith, G.P.; Golden, D.M.; Frenklach, M.; Moriarty, N.W.; Eiteneer, B.; Goldenberg, M.C.; Bowman, T.; Hanson, R.K.; Song, S.;
Gardiner, W.C.; et al. GRI-Mech. Available online: http://www.me.berkeley.edu/grimech/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
28. Hardalupas, Y.; Orain, M. Local measurements of the time-dependent heat release rate and equivalence ratio using chemilumi-
nescent emission from a flame. Combust. Flame 2004, 139, 188–207. [CrossRef]