[6QM]

Hello everyone, there is a problem that I’m stuck when I want to do the numerical verification with EDC model of Ansys Fluent 2020R.

After I built the model and finished comparing the computation results of the radical temperature alongside four axial location (line-x/D: 0.6, 0.9, 1.3, 1.8) with the corresponding experiment values of Sydney flame HM1e (the fuel and air co-flow velocity is 118 m/s, 35 m/s, respectively).

I’ve found that the computation temperature in radical line of 0.6, 0.9, 1.3, 1.8 are always much higher than in same radical location of the Sydney flame HM1e where there must be a big deviation.

There should be something that I don’t consider thoroughly, up to now, I’ve tried so many times to flow up the paper’s numerical method to do the HM1e verification , and I don’t make any progress with this problem since last week.

I do hope some experienced CFD user could give me some useful advice when using EDC model or do the verification with Sydney flame HM1e (I just can’t figure it out, and get stuck in it for too long).

Some information about Fluent combustion setups that I’m taking when do the verification with Sydney HM1e flame:

- Turbulence model:
- Detailed chemical mechanism: Gri-mech 2.11 and Gri-mech 3.0 (I’ve tried the both, almost get the same line trend with temperature in four lines)
- Turbulence Chemistry Interaction (TCI): EDC model with the Stiff Chemistry Solver
- The mixture species setups:
- take incompressible-ideal-gas into account
- Cp: mixing-law
- Thermal Conduct and Viscosity: mass-weighted-mixing-law
- Mass Diffusivity: kinetic-theory
- Setup for i th species:
- Cp: temperature dependent
- others: refers to kinetic theory
- Others description:
- Neglect Radiation
- diabetic wall (zero heat flux)
- boundary condition: velocity inlet of fuel and air co-flow, 118 m/s and 35 m/s, respectively.
- take coupled algorithm
- Steady computation