Special Section on 2018 Clean Energy

Oxy-Combustion Modeling for Direct-Fired Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles

[+] Author and Article Information
Peter A. Strakey

National Energy Technology Laboratory,
3610 Collins Ferry Road,
PO Box 880,
Morgantown, WV 26507
e-mail: peter.strakey@netl.doe.gov

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 20, 2018; final manuscript received February 7, 2019; published online March 29, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Ashwani K. Gupta. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 141(7), 070706 (Mar 29, 2019) (8 pages) Paper No: JERT-18-1449; doi: 10.1115/1.4043124 History: Received June 20, 2018; Revised February 07, 2019

Supercritical CO2 power cycles for fossil energy power generation will likely employ oxy-combustion at very high pressures, possibly exceeding 300 bar. At these high pressures, a direct fired oxy-combustor is more likely to behave like a rocket engine than any type of conventional gas turbine combustor. Issues such as injector design, wall heat transfer, and combustion dynamics may play a challenging role in combustor design. Computational fluid dynamics modeling will not only be useful, but may be a necessity in the combustor design process. To accurately model turbulent reacting flows, combustion submodels appropriate for the conditions of interest as defined by the turbulent time and length scales as well as chemical kinetic time scales are necessary. This paper presents a comparison of various turbulence–chemistry interaction (TCI) modeling approaches on a canonical, single injector, direct-fired sCO2 combustor. Large eddy simulation is used to model the turbulent combustion process with varying levels of injector oxygen concentration while comparing the effect of the combustion submodel on CO emissions and flame shape. While experimental data are not yet available to validate the simulations, the sensitivity of CO production and flame shape can be studied as a function of combustion modeling approach and oxygen concentration in an effort to better understand how to approach combustion modeling at these unique conditions.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Rolls-Royce, 2016, “ Trent 1000 Infographic,” Rolls Royce, Indianapolis, IN, accessed Mar. 15, 2019, http://www.rolls-royce.com/site-services/images/trent-1000-infographic.aspx
Shuttle Press Kit, 1998, “ Main Propulsion System (MPS),” Boeing, NASA and United Space Alliance, Canoga Park, CA, accessed Mar. 19, 2019, www.shuttlepresskit.com/scom/216.pdf
Allam, R. J. , Palmer, M. R. , Brown, G. W. , Fetvedt, J. , Freed, D. , Nomoto, H. , Itoh, M. , Okita, N. , and Jones, C. , 2013, “ High Efficiency and Low Cost of Electricity Generation From Fossil Fuels While Eliminating Atmospheric Emissions, Including Carbon Dioxide,” Energy Procedia, 37, pp. 1135–1149. [CrossRef]
Allam, R. J. , Fetvedt, J. E. , Forrest, B. A. , and Freed, D. A. , 2014, “ The Oxy-Fuel, Supercritical CO2 Allam Cycle: New Cycle Developments to Produce Even Lower-Cost Electricity From Fossil Fules Without Atmospheric Emissions,” ASME Paper No. GT 2014-26952.
Poinsot, T. , and Veynante, D. , eds., 2005, Theoretical and Numerical Combustion, 2nd ed., R.T. Edwards Publisher, Philadelphia, PA.
Veynante, D. , and Vervisch, L. , 2002, “ Turbulent Combustion Modeling,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 28(3), pp. 193–226. [CrossRef]
Givi, P. , 2006, “ Filtered Density Function for Subgrid Scale Modeling of Turbulent Combustion,” AIAA J., 44(1), pp. 16–23. [CrossRef]
Strakey, P. A. , 2018, “ Oxy-Combustion Flame Fundamentals for Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles,” Sixth International Supercritcial CO2 Power Cycles Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA, Mar. 27–29.
Sorusbay, C. , 2016, “ Spark Ignition Engine Combustion,” MAK 652E Lecture, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Manikantachari, K. R. V. , Ladislav, V. , Martin, S. , Bobren-Diaz, J. O. , and Vasu, S. , 2018, “ Reduced Chemical Kinetic Mechansims for Oxy/Methane Supercritical CO2 Combustor Simulations,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 140(9), p. 092202. [CrossRef]
Metcalfe, W. K. , Burke, S. M. , Ahmed, S. S. , and Curran, H. J. , 2013, “ A Hierarchical and Comparative Kinetic Modeling Study of C1–C2 Hydrocarbon and Oxygenated Fuels,” Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 45(10), pp. 638–675. [CrossRef]
Rozenchan, G. , Zhu, D. I. , Law, C. K. , and Tse, S. D. , 2002, “ Outward Propagation, Burning Velocities, and Chemical Effects of Methane Flames Up to 60 atm,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 29(2), pp. 1461–1469. [CrossRef]
Petersen, E. L. , Davidson, D. F. , and Hanson, R. K. , 1999, “ Ignition Delay Times of Ram Accelerator CH4/O2/Diluent Mixtures,” J. Propul. Power, 15(1), pp. 82–91. [CrossRef]
ANSYS, 2017, “ ANSYS Fluent: Release 18.2,” ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
Morley, C. , 2019, “GasEQ,” accessed Mar. 18, 2019, www.gaseq.co.uk
Goodwin, D. G. , Moffat, H. K. , and Speth, R. L. , 2017, “ Cantera: An Object-Oriented Software Toolkit for Chemical Kinetics, Thermodynamics, and Transport Processes, Version 2.3.0,” accessed Mar. 15, 2019, http://www.cantera.org


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Computational domain for the single injector oxy-combustor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Borghi combustion diagram showing combustion regime of the three test cases along with typical operating range for IC engines and gas turbines [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Instantaneous temperature contours through center of combustor for all three cases with laminar model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Contour plots of mean heat release rate (W/m3) for all three cases with laminar model. Linear scale (left) and log scale (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Instantaneous snapshots of temperature (top row) for all three models for O2 mass fraction of 25%. Mean temperature contours (second row), mean OH contours (third row), and mean CO contours (bottom row).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Instantaneous snapshots of temperature (top row) for all three models for O2 mass fraction of 14%. Mean temperature contours (second row), mean OH contours (third row), and mean CO contours (bottom row).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Histograms of mean combustor CO mass fraction emissions for all three models along with calculated equilibrium values. All three test cases presented with decreasing injector O2 concentration from left to right.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Path flux analysis for 300 bar methane oxidation with 16-species mechanism

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Centerline profiles of mean O2 and CO concentration for laminar and FDF models for case 2 (left). Centerline profiles of mean CH4, CH3, and HCO for laminar and FDF models for case 2 (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Centerline profiles of mean CO formation and destruction rates along with CO net rate for case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Instantaneous distributions of normalized mixture fraction probability for laminar and FDF models for case 2 for temperatures greater than 1700 K

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Scatter plots of instantaneous temperature versus mixture fraction in postflame region for laminar and FDF models (left) along with equilibrium values (blue lines), and for laminar and flamelet models (right) for case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Instantaneous snapshots of temperature (top row) for all three models for O2 mass fraction of 7%. Mean temperature contours (second row), mean OH contours (third row), and mean CO contours (bottom row).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Computational time in seconds per time-step on 128 cores for all three models



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In