Large-eddy Simulation of Triangular-stabilized Lean Premixed Turbulent Flames: Quality and Error Assessment

In this numerical study, an algebraic flame surface wrinkling (AFSW) reaction submodel based on the progress variable approach is implemented in the large-eddy simulation (LES) context and validated against the triangular stabilized bluff body flame configuration measurements i.e. in VOLVO test rig. The quantitative predictability of the AFSW model is analyzed in comparison with another well validated turbulent flame speed closure (TFC) combustion model in order to help assess the behaviour of the present model and to further help improve the understanding of the flow and flame dynamics. Characterization of non-reacting (or cold) and reacting flows are performed using various subgrid scale models for consistent grid size variation with 300,000 (coarse), 1.2 million (intermediate) and 2.4 million (fine) grid cells. For non-reacting flows at inlet velocity of 17?m/s and inlet temperature 288?K, coarse grid leads to over prediction of turbulence quantities due to low dissipation at the early stage of flow development behind the bluff body that convects downstream eventually polluting the resulting solution. The simulated results with the intermediate (and fine) grid for mean flow and turbulence quantities, and the vortex shedding frequency (f_s) closely match experimental data. For combusting flows for lean propane/air mixtures at 35?m/s and 600?K, the vortex shedding frequency increase threefold compared with cold scenario. The predicted results of mean, rms velocities and reaction progress variable are generally in good agreement with experimental data. For the coarse grid the combustion predictions show a shorter recirculation region due to higher turbulent burning rate. Finally, both cold and reacting LES data are analyzed for uncertainty in the solution using two quality assessment techniques: two-grid estimator by Celik, and model and grid variation by Klein. For both approaches, the resolved turbulent kinetic energy is used to estimate the grid quality and error assessment. The quality assessment reveals that the cold flows are well resolved even on the intermediate mesh, while for the reacting flows even the fine mesh is locally not sufficient in the flamelet region. The Klein approach estimates that depending on the recirculation region in cold scenario both numerical and model errors rise near the bluff-body region, while in combusting flows these errors are significant behind the stabilizing point due to preheating of unburned mixture and reaction heat release. The total error mainly depends on the numerical error and the influence of model error is low for this configuration.