Evaluation of an unsteady flamelet progress variable model for autoignition and flame development in compositionally stratified mixtures

Abstract

<jats:p>The unsteady flamelet progress variable (UFPV) model has been proposed by Pitsch and Ihme [“An unsteady/flamelet progress variable method for LES of nonpremixed turbulent combustion,” AIAA Paper No. 2005-557, 2005] for modeling the averaged/filtered chemistry source terms in Reynolds averaged simulations and large eddy simulations of reacting non-premixed combustion. In the UFPV model, a look-up table of source terms is generated as a function of mixture fraction Z, scalar dissipation rate χ, and progress variable C by solving the unsteady flamelet equations. The assumption is that the unsteady flamelet represents the evolution of the reacting mixing layer in the non-premixed flame. We assess the accuracy of the model in predicting autoignition and flame development in compositionally stratified n-heptane/air mixtures using direct numerical simulations (DNS). The focus in this work is primarily on the assessment of accuracy of the probability density functions (PDFs) employed for obtaining averaged source terms. The performance of commonly employed presumed functions, such as the dirac-delta distribution function, the β distribution function, and statistically most likely distribution (SMLD) approach in approximating the shapes of the PDFs of the reactive and the conserved scalars is evaluated. For unimodal distributions, it is observed that functions that need two-moment information, e.g., the β distribution function and the SMLD approach with two-moment closure, are able to reasonably approximate the actual PDF. As the distribution becomes multimodal, higher moment information is required. Differences are observed between the ignition trends obtained from DNS and those predicted by the look-up table, especially for smaller gradients where the flamelet assumption becomes less applicable. The formulation assumes that the shape of the χ(Z) profile can be modeled by an error function which remains unchanged in the presence of heat release. We show that this assumption is not accurate.</jats:p>