Advanced Design Optimization of Combustion Equipment Using Sculptor with CFD Tools

Paper from the AFRC 2014 conference titled Advanced Design Optimization of Combustion Equipment Using Sculptor with CFD Tools by J.D. Smith.

In the past, design changes for engineered combustion systems have been determined using the laborious Edison approach of "build and try" method which requires the engineer to examine 2N different design combinations to consider all possible configurations. The number of design iterations is often reduced based on the engineer's experience of what will and will not work and what is feasible and what is not feasible. However, this tried and true approach is often too expensive and takes too much time in a competitive market. For example, examining as few as three different design options to identify the "optimal" duct configuration to reduce pressure loss and minimizes fan size in a refinery combustion air feed system can take as long as four weeks using CFD in the "cut and try" approach. However, coupling efficient optimization algorithms with current CFD tools can reduce this time by 50% while examining many more design options than is possible using the "cut-and-try" approach. This option of examining hundreds of designs to find the "optimal" solution is the main focus of this paper. Work will be shown that links the shape optimization code Sculptor® with a freeware CFD tool called Openfoam. Results will be shown that illustrate the application of this "linked" approach to design optimization for a complex duct flow problem. In addition, work reported here will illustrate the general methodology applied to optimization of a simple air flare tip and a process gas burner. These examples illustrate how this methodology can be used to optimize combustion equipment to improve performance and reduce cost.

American Flame Research Committees 2014 - INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Hyatt Regency Hotel Houston, Texas - September 7 -10, 2014 Advanced Design Optimization of Combustion Equipment Using Sculptor® with CFD Tools Joseph D. Smith1, Vikram Sreedharan2, Vivek Rao3, Missouri University of Science and Technology Mark Landon, PhD., Optimal Solutions Software4 Zachary P. Smith5 Systems Analyses and Solutions, Inc. Abstract: Traditional optimization studies on computational fluid dynamic (CFD) models entail changes in geometry and consequent regeneration of computational grids. Depending on the extent of spatial discretization, these changes may be computationally intensive and prove redundant in a computational time frame. SCULPTOR® from Optimal Solutions Software has provided arbitrary shape deformation (ASD) tools that allow 3D shape deformation (i.e. morphing without the need of CAD parameters and without remeshing) of the computational mesh as a result of detailed changes in geometry, allowing efficient, detailed, optimized analysis of CFD models. The case at hand is an extension of advanced burner optimization performed on the standard burner engineering laboratory design, where SCULPTOR was effectively utilized to optimize flame stability for biomass gasification (Smith and Landon, 2013). Further to a base design, this study investigates the effect of changing the annular location of secondary air inlets peripheral to the primary air inlet in a biomass gasifier, as also a change in the diameter of secondary air inlets; affecting swirl, and analyzes the resulting change in flame temperature, recirculation zones and gas phase flow instabilities. From the five cases studied, it was observed that the two secondary locus change cases and the geometry change to the combustor produced estimates (especially for outlet major species mole fractions) very close to the experimental results furnished by Kobayashi et al. (2009). Introduction and Background: Ecological protection and emission reduction have brought targeting exit species concentrations from combustion units to the forefront of combustion/gasification design goals. Biomass is bio-degradable, eco-friendly and provides satisfactory energy supply for small-scale applications, where power from coal combustion plants is not necessarily required. However, due to more vastly varying compositions in biomass feedstock as compared to coal, a comprehensive benchmark database is yet to be established and verified. 1 Laufer Endowed Energy Chair and Professor of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO; 573-341-4294/ [e-mail] 2 Post-Doctoral fellow, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO; 573-341-4410/ [e-mail] 3 PhD Candidate, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO; [phone]/ [e-mail] 4 Chief Technical Officer, Optimal Solutions, LLC, Idaho Falls, ID; 208-521-4660; [e-mail] 5 Application engineer, Zeeco, Inc., Broken Arrow, OK; [phone]/ [e-mail] Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas In order to target a certain NOx, CO or greenhouse gas exit concentration, an in-depth understanding of physical geometries that influence the initiation and progress of respective solid phase and gas phase reactions is pivotal to the design of a gasification chamber. Investigation of chamber designs in CFD models has generally involved regeneration of meshes with changing geometries. With SCULPTOR®, recursive mesh generation in gasification models can be circumvented (Smith and Landon, 2013). Arbitrary shape deformation (ASD) tools modified the existing geometry, morphing the existing mesh with significant detail at primary and secondary air inlets (341444 mixed cells with over 95% hexahedral) while maintaining cell quality. Physical Model Description: The base design for biomass gasification is an air-blown entrained-flow type gasifier of lab scale used for experimental studies by Kobayashi et al. (2009), shown in Figure 1. The primary air inlet entrains biomass particles, located concentric to the axis of symmetry. The four secondary air inlets are centered on a concentric locus, intermediate to the primary air inlet and the burner wall. Figure 1 -Front and side views of biomass gasification geometry - base case The generated mesh has 341444 mixed cells composed of HEX cells, TET cells and PRISM cells. The mesh used in the base case was composed of over 95% hexahedral cells as shown in Figure 2. This mesh illustrates the detailed mesh used at the reactor face where primary inlets are located. Computational Model Setup and Boundary Conditions: Discrete phase model (DPM) was used to model continuous and discrete phases, considering the flow is dilute; Lagrange formulation was utilized to approximate particle tracks coupled with heat and mass transfer resulting from particle motion (Shi et al., 2006). Accordingly, an Euler-Lagrange description of the flow is necessary; an Eulerian formulation by solving conservation equations for mass, momentum and energy for the bulk phase (Versteeg and Malalasekara, 2007) and the Lagrangian formulation for the particle phase. Page 2 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas For a spherical particle, the drag force is defined as (Haberman and Sayre, 1958): =18𝑝𝑝224 Eq. 1 Figure 2 - Mesh for the base case (341444 cells with over 95% hexahedral) The drag coefficient is determined from the Schiller and Naumann (1935) model correlation as: =􀵜􅰲24(1+0.150.687) ≤1000⁄0.44 >1000 Eq. 2 Ranz and Marshall's (1952) Nusselt number correlation is then used to determine the convective heat transfer coefficient: Page 3 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas =ℎ∞=2.0+0.612⁄13⁄ Eq. 3 The standard k-ε turbulence model was used to model flow phenomena - primarily, eddy dissipation. The SIMPLE scheme was used for pressure-velocity coupling with the least squares technique for the spatial discretization gradient. A second-order spatial discretization upwind scheme was used for momentum, turbulence, energy, species and radiation. The woody biomass particles are heated till the vaporization/devolatilization temperature is reached. There is no mass transfer or chemical reactions during this stage. When the biomass particles reach a certain temperature, say the vaporization temperature, moisture is released. The chemical reactions and associated kinetics for solid and gas phases are seen to follow: passive heating, devolatilization, volatiles oxidation, char combustion and gasification. The kinetic devolatilization rate is determined from the Kobayashi et al. (1976) model with two- competing rates. The overall weight loss is determined by: =􀵫􆬵,0−􀵯􆼨(11+22)exp 􁉀􄀒−∫(1+2)𝑡 0􁉁􄄠 Eq. 4 where 1=1𝑒 􀵫􆬒−1⁄􀵯􆼠 and 2=2𝑒 􀵫􆬒−2⁄􀵯􆼠 are the two competing rates that control the devolatilization over different temperature ranges. The yield factors α1 and α2 represent devolatilization at low and high temperatures, respectively. The yield factors are feed specific and is determined from proximate analysis. Volatiles Oxidation, Char Combustion and Gasification: After all the volatiles have been released, oxidation of volatiles, char combustion and gasification takes place until all the char is consumed or the particles flow out of the reactor. The chemical reactions include volatile oxidation (combustion), char combustion (oxidation), char-steam gasification, char-carbon dioxide gasification and char-hydrogen gasification, followed by the gas phase reactions. Volatiles oxidation/combustion for oxygen-rich conditions is given by: 𝑚 11𝑚 12𝑚 13𝑚 14𝑚 15+􁉀􄀵11+𝑚 124−𝑚 132+15􁉁􄄙∙21􁈱􃄒􁈮􂸠 Eq. 5 11∙2+122∙2+142∙2+15∙2 Using the expression for the partial oxidation of volatiles from Chen et al (2000), we get the following equation for volatiles oxidation/combustion under oxygen-lean conditions, 􀵬􆰵<􁉀􄀵11+𝑚 124−𝑚 132+15􁉁􄄍􀵰􇀺: 𝑚 11𝑚 12𝑚 13𝑚 14𝑚 15+∙22􁈱􃄒􁈮􂸠 11∙(12+2𝐶 )+ Eq. 6 􀵬􆰱1−12(12−2∙15)􀵰􇀙∙2+ 12(12−2∙15)∙2+𝑚 142∙2+15∙2 Page 4 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas Carbon monoxide and hydrogen are produced during the gasification of char particles. The performance of a gasifier is determined primarily by the char gasification reactions. The following particle surface reactions have been included in the model: +1223􁈱􃄒􁈮􂸵𝐶 Eq. 7 +24􁈱􃄒􁈮􂸵𝐶 +2 Eq. 8 +25􁈱􃄒􁈮􂸲2𝐶 Eq. 9 +226􁈱􃄒􁈮􂸵4 Eq. 10 The continuous phase is modeled by using global reactions to describe gas phase chemistry. A set of global reduced reaction kinetics appropriate for gasification studies has been used in the present analysis. The following reaction paths have been considered for this model: 4+1227􁈱􃄒􁈮􂸵𝐶 +22 Eq. 11 2+1228􁈱􃄒􁈮􂸵2 Eq. 12 𝐶 +1229􁈱􃄒􁈮􂸵𝐶 2 Eq. 13 𝐶 +210􁈯􂼒􁈰􃀵2+2 Eq. 14 A reduced global reactions scheme has been used to lessen the computational burden required when using a detailed reaction mechanism with the eddy dissipation concept. The chemical kinetics of Wu et al. (2010) was employed with some minor changes as shown in Table 1. Table 1 - The chemical kinetics parameters used for the competing finite-rate/eddy dissipation model Reaction Rate Ar (s-1) Er (J/kmol) nr 􀷑􍄍􀵣􆌵,􀵧􆜍􀵫􆬵,′+,′′􀵯􆼵 A B Source (k1) 2.119 x 1011 2.027 x 108 0 [Vol]0.2[O2]1.3 100 25 FLUENT (2013) (k2) 4.4 x 1011 1.25 x 108 0 [Vol]0.2[O2]1.3 100 25 Jones & Lindstedt (1988) (k3) 0.052 6.1 x 107 0 - - - Chen et al. (2000) (k4) 0.0782 1.15 x 108 0 - - - Chen et al. (2000) (k5) 0.0732 1.125 x 108 0 - - - Chen et al. (2000) (k6) 1.2 x 10-5 7.53 x 107 0 - - - Govind and Shah (1984) (k7) 4.4 x 1011 1.25 x 108 0 [CH4]0.5[O2]1.25 11.5 2.75 Jones and Lindstedt (1988) (k8) 2.5 x 1016 1.68 x 108 -1 [H2]0.5[O2]2.25[H2O]-1 3.1 0.75 Jones and Lindstedt (1988) (k9) 3.16 x 1012 1.67 x 108 0 [CO]1.5[O2]0.25 2.1 0.53 Wu et al. (2010) (k10f) 5 x 1012 2.83 x 108 0 [CO]0.5[H2O]1 4 0.5 Callaghan (2006) (k10b) 9.5 x 1010 2.39 x 108 0 [CO2]1[H2]0.5 4 0.5 Callaghan (2006) Page 5 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas The proximate and ultimate analysis of this biomass is as shown in Table 2. The chemical composition of the volatiles released from the pulverized wood (biomass) can be estimated by calculations, and a pseudo-compound representing the volatiles can be created for the CFD model in ANSYS Fluent 14.5. Table 2 - Proximate and ultimate analysis for the pulverized wood used as feed Proximate analysis (wt %) Moisture 5.06 Volatile matter 82.95 Fixed carbon 16.15 Ash 0.90 Ultimate analysis (wt %) Carbon 48.6 Hydrogen 6.4 Oxygen 44.0 Nitrogen 0.1 Sulfur 0.9 Low heating value (MJ/kg) 18.6 A Rosin-Rammler size distribution has been used for the pulverized wood particle size. From Kobayashi et al. (2009), the parameters determined for the particle size distribution are as shown in Table 3. Table 3 - Rosin-Rammler particle size parameters for the pulverized wood feed Rosin-Rammler parameters Minimum diameter (mm) 0.05 Maximum diameter (mm) 0.25 Mean diameter (mm) 0.10 Spread parameter 2.5 Number of diameters 12 There were 12 discrete particle sizes selected for the Rosin-Rammler size distribution with 20 stochastic tries (with random eddy lifetimes) for each diameter to simulate the effect of turbulent dispersion on the pulverized wood particle parcels. The feeding rate of the pulverized wood is either 19 kg/hr or 27 kg/hr for the four cases considered in this study. Methane gas was supplied from the ignition burner to maintain the gasification temperature due to limitations with the biomass feeder. The injected methane rate was held constant at 1.8 𝑁𝑁3/ℎr for all cases. The operating conditions used in Kobayashi et al. (2009) were used for this study. The oxygen-carbon molar ratio (O/C) is defined as the input oxygen carbon ratio as defined by the relation: ⁄=222.4⁄×2+,16⁄,12⁄+422.4⁄ Eq. 15 Where, 2 is the amount of injected oxygen [𝑁𝑁3/ℎ𝑟 ], , is the amount of oxygen in the pulverized wood [kg/hr], 4 is the amount of preheating methane [𝑁𝑁3/ℎ𝑟 ] and , is the amount of carbon in the pulverized wood [kg/hr]. Biomass was fed at a steady mass flow rate of 19 kg/hr with an O/C ratio of 1.83. Page 6 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas The parameters for the competing-rate (Kobayashi et al., 1976) devolatilization model were taken from Payette and Tillman (2001) for woody biomass as shown in Table 4. The temperature at which the devolatilization begins for the pulverized wood particles was taken to be 506.15K. Table 4- The Kobayashi devolatilization model parameters used for pulverized wood Devolatilization parameters A1 (s-1) 1.17 E1 (J/kmol) 2.851 x 106 A2 (s-1) 5.74 E2 (J/kmol) 1.432 x 107 α1 0.79 α2 0.98 The temperature boundary conditions for the biomass gasifier are as shown in Table 5. Table 5 - The temperature boundary conditions used in the model Boundary name T (K) Biomass inlet 700 Air inlet 850 Wall 1040 The turbulence intensity was set at 8% for the biomass inlet and at 10% for the air inlet specifying the hydraulic diameters for these inlets, with use of the standard k-ε turbulence model. The weighted sum of grey gases model (WSGGM) was used along with the discrete ordinates model for radiation. The particle scattering factor is 0.3 and emissivity 0.5. The wall internal emissivity was selected as 0.16 Optimization Study Using SCULPTOR® Based Design Framework: Optimal Solutions Software, LLC, (OSS) has developed a novel methodology called Arbitrary Shape Deformation (ASD) that helps solve critical problems in computer aided engineering (CAE) design: • Inadequate shape parameterization algorithms. • Inadequate algorithms for CAE (CFD and FEA) grid shape modification. Traditional CAD parameters often fail to provide the correct parameterization required to accurately capture the governing physics involved in shape optimization. ASD enables an engineer to control and manipulate the shape of any geometry from CAD/CAM data or CFD/FEA computational grids. To use ASD, one defines a set of control points around the object to be deformed. These control points are then moved and the underlying functions morph the entity into a new shape. This approach allows the user to mold the shape as if they were a sculptor molding clay. This concept can be illustrated using a physical analogy. Page 7 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas Consider a volume of clear, flexible plastic, in which an object to be deformed has been embedded. The embedded object has the same degree of flexibility as the volume so that as the plastic volume is deformed, the embedded object is also deformed accordingly (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). The volume is modeled as a tri-variate parametric volume with its deformation controlled by a small set of control points. In creating the ASD, the user controls the number of control points used as well as where each control point is located. The ASD technology and the accompanying graphical user interface tools to create and visualize the shape deformation process are part of OSS' commercial software, SCULPTOR®. Figure 3- A spherical ball (mesh) is embedded in an ASD grid. Control points are moved and the ASD grid is deformed, causing the ball (the mesh) to deform Figure 4- ASD volumes created around Formula Race car front wing. Parametrically rectangular ASD volume used to examine wing shape changes with real-time smoothed deformation of middle wings' sections angle of attack to show smooth transition between morphed and non-morphed locations SCULPTOR® BACKGROUND ASD solves the first problem listed above by allowing the design engineer to freely create unique shape parameters instead of being restricted to the parameters found in the CAD model. The second problem is solved as SCULPTOR® performs a smooth volumetric deformation in real-time without having to redo the CAD model. Both of these features eliminates the high cost of remeshing for each unique shape Page 8 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas considered. SCULPTOR® can perform a design change in seconds which normally requires hours (or days) to complete if one has to redo the CAD model for the new shape and then remesh this in the CFD model. SCULPTOR® also allows the design engineer to parameterize, deform and optimize shapes into new and improved designs by providing automated shape and mesh changes. SCULPTOR® has been applied to design optimization for internal and/or external flow problems in the aerospace, automotive, chemical processing, biomedical, electronics, power generation, turbo machinery, and marine industries. This tool can be applied to any problem where the shape affects the system performance through the associated physics (i.e., fluid flow, heat/mass transfer, chemical reactions, combustion, structural mechanics, fluid structure interaction, etc.) The following list summarizes SCULPTOR® capabilities: (1) Import and export any CAE model (CFD and/or FEA) and/or CAD files with commercial (and in-house codes) including Fluent, StarCD, StarCCM+, ICEM-CFD, Plot3D, Nastran, Ansys, Abaqus, Fieldview, CRUNCH, STL, IGES, STEP, and many other file formats, (2) Innovative advanced tools in a Graphical User Interface that is easy to learn and use to create the ASD volumes for any shape including irregular shapes and topologies. (3) Create user-defined shape change parameters with control points grouped together into shape change variables where each control point is defined to move in its own directions allowing shape changes to be defined in terms of translate, rotate, or scale the geometry or mesh shape, (4) Maintain fine local control of deformation for subtle shape changes since the best shape change to improve performance may be small and subtle, thus requiring the need for highly accurate smooth shape deformations, (5) Large deformation capabilities for useful conceptual design exploration, (6) Maintain high mesh quality for viscous surface mesh thickness and shape, (7) Perform rigid body deformations of components within the flow domain mesh (for problems such as wing flap rotation, valve movement, etc.), (8) Perform deformation in real-time without the need to revisit CAD or remesh, (9) Calculate and monitor the computational mesh quality in real-time during the deformation process and use the mesh quality measurements as constraints in the optimization process, (10) Deform multiple CFD and/or FEA grids simultaneously, (11) Optimize with a built-in Gradient-based Optimization Algorithm (GRG - Generalized Reduced Gradient) or Design of Experiments with Optimal Latin Hypercube and Response Surface Methodology, (12) Use in batch-mode execution with external optimization tools including Simulia iSIGHT, ModeFrontier, Phoenix Integration, Opitmus, DAKOTA, Matlab and others, and (13) Sending optimized shape back to CAD by applying the optimal shape deformation to the CAD model via IGES, STEP, ACIS, ParaSolids file formats so the user can interactively deform a CAD model directly using SCULPTOR®. SCULPTOR® has been used worldwide by design engineers in many industries including aerospace, aircraft, marine, turbo machinery, biomedical, fossil energy, oil and gas, petroleum and others. Page 9 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas CURRENT SCULPTOR® APPLICATION The parameters for the current analysis included CO, CO2, H20 mole fractions and temperature profiles in the devolatilization and gasification zones and at the gasifier outlet plane (see Table 6): Table 6- Design parameters for Biomass Gasifier Optimization Design Parameter Original Dimension (mm) New Dimension (mm) Diameter of locus of secondary air inlet centers 180 170 Diameter of locus of secondary air inlet centers 180 190 Secondary air inlet diameter 50 40 Diameter of cross-section 300 mm downstream of air inlets 255 280 Accordingly, the ASD tool was used to remesh at geometric zones selected for shape deformation. The number of cells in all meshes was maintained constant but re-ordered as shown in Figure 3 (a) - (d). This process shows that it is possible to deform loci of uniform geometric shapes (locus of diameter of secondary air inlets), as also smooth deformation into non-uniform regions with retention of mesh continuity and alignment over deformed interfaces (cross-section deformation over 300 mm downstream from inlet cross section). (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 5- Meshes for (a) diameter of locus of secondary inlet centers at 170 mm, (b) diameter of locus of secondary inlet centers at 190 mm, (c) secondary inlet diameter at 40 mm, and (d) ASD of region 300 mm downstream from inlet cross section Page 10 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas Results and Discussion: Computing resources at the Energy Research and Development Center (ERDC) at Missouri University at Science and Technology, Rolla (MO) were utilized for this purpose. This consisted of two Intel Xeon X-5690 CPUs (2 x 6 processors) running at 3.46GHz with 48GB RAM. Typically, each run met the convergence criteria within 6 to 8 hours of CPU time when 10 processors were utilized. The analyses consisted of five different CFD calculations including (a) basecase design, (b) secondary separation (locus) changed from 180mm to 170mm, (c) the locus changed from 180mm to 190mm, (d) the secondary diameters changed from 50mm to 40mm, and (e) Inclusion of a convex bulge (bulb) portion near the inlet of the gasifier. (a) Case 1: Base Case Design (b) Case 2: Secondary locus changed from 180 to 170 mm (c) Case 3: Secondary locus changed from 180 to 190 mm (d) Case 4: Secondary diameter changed from 50 to 40 mm (e) Case 5: Adding convex bulb in gasifier inlet region Figure 6: Temperature (K) contours for design analysis of biomass gasifier As can be seen, the temperature distributions for all five cases are similar except for Case 4 where the secondary inlet diameter was changed from 50mm to 40mm. For this case, gasification is initiated further upstream compared to the other cases which results in a higher observed peak temperature (1815K) along Page 11 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas the gasifier axis as shown in Figure 6d. In all the other cases, the maximum peak temperature is observed 0.45m to 0.55m downstream of the inlet (with similar flame shapes) with the peak temperature within the gasifier not exceeding 1740K. As shown in Figure 7, most of the CO release occurs well into the second half of the gasifier, downstream of the char burnout region for all cases considered. The magnitude of both the peak CO concentration as well as the outlet CO concentration is less in Case 4 (see Figure 7d) compared to the other cases. The gasifier outlet CO concentration is nearly the same for Cases 2, 3 and 5, which agrees very well with experimental results of Kobayashi et al. (2009) with an error of less than 3%. (a) Case 1: Base Case Design (b) Case 2: Secondary locus changed from 180 to 170 mm (c) Case 3: Secondary locus changed from 180 to 190 mm (d) Case 4: Secondary diameter changed from 50 to 40 mm (e) Case 5: Adding convex bulb in gasifier inlet region Figure 7 - CO mole fraction contours for design analysis of biomass gasifier The highest formation of H2 is predicted to occur around 0.25m to 0.3m downstream of the reactor inlet (see Figure 8). The magnitude of both the peak H2 concentration as well as the H2 concentration at the outlet is less in Case 4 (see Figure 8d) as compared to the other cases. The gasifier outlet H2 concentration Page 12 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas is also very similar for Cases 2, 3 and 5, again quite similar to Kobayashi's experimental results (see Kobayashi et al. 2009). (a) Case 1: Base Case Design (b) Case 2: Secondary locus changed from 180 to 170 mm (c) Case 3: Secondary locus changed from 180 to 190 mm (d) Case 4: Secondary diameter changed from 50 to 40 mm (e) Case 5: Adding convex bulb in gasifier inlet region Figure 8: H2 mole fraction contours for design analysis of biomass gasifier The predicted peak CO2 formation is observed immediately downstream of the highest observed H2, again along the gasifier axis (see Figure 9). The magnitude of both the peak CO2 concentration as well as the concentration at the gasifier outlet is less in Case 4 (see Figure 9d) as compared to the other cases considered. The gasifier outlet CO2 concentration is very similar for Cases 2, 3 and 5. However, for the CO2 gasifier outlet concentration, Case 4 predicted concentrations are closest to experimental results (Kobayashi et al. (2009). Page 13 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas (a) Case 1: Base Case Design (b) Case 2: Secondary locus changed from 180 to 170 mm (c) Case 3: Secondary locus changed from 180 to 190 mm (d) Case 4: Secondary diameter changed from 50 to 40 mm (e) Case 5: Adding convex bulb in gasifier inlet region Figure 9: CO2 mole fraction contours for design analysis of biomass gasifier Comparing all results together (see Figure 10) it is seen that the predicted outlet species mole fractions for CO2, H2 and CO for the different design cases agree well with the experimental results of Kobayashi et al. (2009). Specifically, the outlet CO concentrations for Cases 2, 3 and 5 are very close to the experimental results of Kobayashi et al (2009) with an error of less than 3%. The same is seen for H2 concentration while the CO2 concentration at the gasifier outlet for Case 4 is closest to Kobayashi's experimental results again with an error of slightly more than 3%. Overall, it is observed that for Cases 2, 3, and 5), the secondary locus at 170mm, the secondary locus at 190mm and the ASD case agree well with experimental results. Page 14 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas Figure 10 - Comparison of H2, CO2 and CO species mole fractions (%) at gasifier outlet. Figure 11 -Temperature (K) distribution along the gasifier length (m) From Figure 11, it can be observed that the temperature distributions are similar for all the cases except Case 4, which includes results for decreasing the secondary inlet diameter from 50mm to 40mm. The temperature in the other four cases does not vary more than 4%, with the maximum difference predicted to occur close to the gasification zone. In this zone, when compared with the experimental data, the difference amounts to an error of less than 4%. 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Expt. (%) Base Model (%) Sec dia = 40mm (%) Loc dia = 170mm (%) Loc dia = 190mm (%) Bulb Near Inlet (%) Expt. (%) Base Model (%) Sec dia = 40mm (%) Loc dia = 170mm (%) Loc dia = 190mm (%) Bulb Near Inlet (%) Expt. (%) Base Model (%) Sec dia = 40mm (%) Loc dia = 170mm (%) Loc dia = 190mm (%) Bulb Near Inlet (%) H2 CO2 CO 900.0 1000.0 1100.0 1200.0 1300.0 1400.0 1500.0 1600.0 1700.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Expt. BaseModel Sec dia= 40mm Loc dia =170mm Loc dia =190mm Temperat Axialdistance from Page 15 of 16 Environmental Compliance in Multi-Tip Ground Flares September 7 -10, 2014 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SYMPOSIUM Houston, Texas Conclusions: The gasification model was set up in ANSYS Fluent with the Euler-Lagrange DPM with a competing finite-rate/eddy dissipation sub-model. After the Base Case was successfully completed, SCULPTOR® was used to deform the geometry (Case 5) and reorder the respective mesh for all cases except for Case 1 which enabled a more efficient parameterization study and allowed consideration of using an ASD to perform reactor shape deformation. From this study, it was observed that the temperature distribution was similar for the four design cases except for Case 4 which considered decreasing the secondary air inlet diameter from 50mm to 40mm. Also, it appears there is closer agreement with experimental data for the outlet species mole fractions of CO and H2 for Cases 2, 3 and 5 while for CO2, Case 4 appeared to provide the best agreement to experimental data. References: [1] Callaghan, C.A. (2006). Kinetics and Catalysis of the Water-Gas-Shift Reaction: A Microkinetic and Graph Theoretic Approach. Ph. D. Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, U.S.A. [2] Chen, C., Horio, M. and Kojima, T. (2000). Numerical simulation of entrained flow coal gasifiers. Part I: modeling of coal gasification in an entrained flow gasifier. Chemical Engineering Science, 55, 3861-3874. [3] Govind, R. and Shah, J. (1984). Modeling and Simulation of an Entrained Flow Coal Gasifier. AIChE Journal, 30(1), 79-92. [4] Haberman, W.L. and Sayre, R.M. (1958). Motion of rigid and fluid spheres in stationary and moving liquids inside cylindrical tubes. David Taylor Model Basin Report No. 1143. [5] Kobayashi, H., Howard, J.B. and Sarofim, A.F. (1976). Sixteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion - The Combustion Institute, 411-425. [6] Kobayashi, N., Tanaka, M., Piao, G., Kobayashi, J., Hatano, S., Itaya, Y., Mori, S. (2009). High temperature air-blown woody biomass gasification model for the estimation of an entrained down-flow gasifier. Waste Management, 29, 245-251. [7] Payette, K. and Tillman, D. (2001). Designing an opportunity fuel with biomass and tire-derived fuel for cofiring at Willow Island generating station. Alleghany Energy Supply Co. LLC Quarterly Technical Report (DE-FC26-00NT40894). [8] Ranz, W.E. and Marshall, W.R. Jr. (1952). Evaporation from drops. Chemical Engineering Progress, 48, 141-144. [9] Schiller, L. and Naumann, Z. (1935). A drag coefficient correlation. Z. Ver. Deutsch. Ing., 77, 318. [10]Shi, S.P., Zitney, S.E., Shahnam, M., Syamlal, M. and Rogers, W.A. (2006). Modelling coal gasification with CFD and discrete phase method. Journal of the Energy Institute, 79(4), 217-221. [11]Smith, J.D., Landon, M. (2013). Advanced design optimization of combustion equipment for bio-energy systems using sculptor with CFD tools. AFRC 2013: Safe and Responsible Development for the 21st Century, Kauai, Hawaii. [12]Versteeg, H. and Malalasekara, W. (2007). An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method (2nd Edition), Prentice Hall. [13]Wu, Y., Smith, P.J., Zhang, J., Thornock, J.N. and Yue, G. (2010). Effects of Turbulent Mixing and Controlling Mechanisms in an Entrained Flow Coal Gasifier. Energy & Fuels, 24(2), 1170-1175. Page 16 of 16