pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19994 · v1 · pith:EXFNTFM5new · submitted 2026-05-19 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Performance Evaluation of RANS-Based Turbulence Models in Predicting Turbulent Non-Premixed Swirling Combustion within a Realistic Can Combustor

Aishvarya Kumar , Ram Prakash Bharti This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 04:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords RANS turbulence modelsnon-premixed combustionswirling flowcan combustorSST k-omegaCFD analysiscentral recirculation zonelaminar flamelet
0
0 comments X

The pith

The SST k-ω turbulence model predicts mean velocities, turbulent kinetic energy, shear stress, and key flow structures more accurately than other RANS models in a realistic can combustor.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper evaluates four RANS turbulence models for their performance in a CFD simulation of non-premixed swirling combustion inside a can combustor. Non-premixed combustion is handled with a presumed beta-PDF combined with a steady laminar flamelet model using the San Diego mechanism. The SST k-ω model, despite its isotropic turbulent viscosity, matches experimental expectations for axial and transverse velocities, TKE, and stresses better than the standard k-ε, realizable k-ε, or LPS-RSM. It also reproduces the central recirculation zone and central vortex core more faithfully while indicating stronger primary-zone mixing and a compact reaction region. These comparisons matter because accurate turbulence modeling directly affects predictions of heat release location, species concentrations, and overall combustor efficiency.

Core claim

The SST k-ω model predicted the mean axial velocity, mean transverse velocity, turbulent kinetic energy and shear stress more accurately. It also predicted the central recirculation zone and central vortex core more accurately than the other models. The model further showed a higher temperature in the primary zone supported by lower C3H8 prediction and elevated TKE, produced the most compact stoichiometric mixture fraction bubble, and indicated high progress variable values confirming near-complete reaction in the primary zone and shear layers.

What carries the argument

Direct comparison of four RANS turbulence closures (standard k-ε, realizable k-ε, SST k-ω, LPS-RSM) inside a CFD framework that couples them to a beta-PDF steady laminar flamelet combustion model.

If this is right

  • The SST k-ω model better captures the coupling between swirl-driven recirculation and combustion inside can combustors.
  • Most of the reaction progress and heat release occurs inside the primary zone rather than downstream.
  • Lower predicted outlet C3H8 and CO under the SST k-ω model point to more complete combustion within the modeled domain.
  • The compact stoichiometric mixture fraction region implies limited combustion activity outside the primary zone and shear layers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • For preliminary design of similar swirling combustors, engineers could begin with SST k-ω to obtain reasonable mean-flow and reaction-zone estimates at modest computational cost.
  • Ranking the models by fidelity to expected flow features suggests that isotropic-viscosity closures can still be useful when the dominant physics is mean recirculation rather than anisotropy.
  • Targeted experiments focused on the primary zone would provide the strongest test of whether the predicted temperature and species trends hold.
  • The same geometry and boundary conditions could be reused to test whether the model ranking changes when the flamelet assumption is replaced by a finite-rate chemistry solver.

Load-bearing premise

The presumed beta-PDF plus steady laminar flamelet model with the San Diego mechanism is assumed to represent the non-premixed swirling combustion physics adequately without direct experimental validation data for this specific can-combustor geometry.

What would settle it

Experimental measurements of velocity profiles, temperature, and species concentrations at multiple axial planes inside the same can combustor geometry would reveal whether the SST k-ω results lie closer to the data than the results from the k-ε or Reynolds-stress models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.19994 by Aishvarya Kumar, Ram Prakash Bharti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of a combustor geometry with the primary and dilution hole plane positions for field measurement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematics of the computational mesh. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Velocity and turbulence characteristics at axial position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity and turbulence characteristics at axial position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Velocity and turbulence characteristics variations over the length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted turbulent viscosity (µt , kg/m/s kg m−1 s −1 ) on primary and dilution holes plane at the reacting conditions (refer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of velocity vectors predicted on the horizontal (Z-Y) plane using various turbulence models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of velocity vectors predicted on the front (X-Y) plane using various turbulence models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of velocity vectors predicted on the front (X-Y) plane using various turbulence models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Predicted Favre-averaged temperature, T˜ = (ρT/ρ) (K), on primary and dilution holes plane at the reacting conditions (refer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Predicted Favre-averaged mass fraction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Predicted Favre-averaged mass fraction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Predicted Favre-averaged mass fraction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Predicted turbulent thermal diffusivity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of mixture fraction (Z) predicted on the X-Y (front) plane using various turbulence models.The stoichio￾metric mixture fraction Z = 0.06 is depicted by the pink line. 41 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of progress variables (C) predicted on the X-Y (front) plane using various turbulence models. 42 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This study has presented a comprehensive computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis of combustion flow in a realistic can combustor, evaluating the influence of various turbulence models on flow, thermal, and species fields. The non-premixed combustion modeling is performed using a presumed (beta) PDF approach in conjunction with a steady laminar flamelet model employing the San Diego reaction mechanism, and the turbulence is modeled using the RANS approach. The influence of turbulence models (standard $k-\epsilon$, realizable $k-\epsilon$, SST $k-\omega$, LPS-RSM) on the velocity field, such as the mean axial velocity, mean transverse velocity, turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) and shear stress, is analyzed, besides their influence on temperature and species (\ce{C3H8}, \ce{CO2}, and \ce{CO}) concentration. Analysis showed that despite the shortcomings of the isotropic turbulent viscosity formulation of the SST $k-\omega$ model being evident, it predicted the mean axial velocity, mean transverse velocity, turbulent kinetic energy and shear stress more accurately. Additionally, it predicted the flow features expected in a can combustor, such as the central recirculation zone (CRZ) and central vortex core (CVC), more accurately than other models. Besides, the model predicted a higher temperature in the primary zone, which is supported by a lower prediction of \ce{C3H8}, and elevated TKE, both of which support strong mixing and efficient heat release. Furthermore, the SST $k-\omega$ model predicted the most compact stoichiometric mixture fraction bubble, encompassing CRZ and shear layers, indicating that the majority of the combustion occurs in the primary zone. The corresponding progress variables also indicated high values in the primary zone and shear layers, confirming near completion of the reaction, supported by negligible prediction of \ce{C3H8} and \ce{CO} at the outlet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript evaluates four RANS turbulence closures (standard k-ε, realizable k-ε, SST k-ω, LPS-RSM) for non-premixed swirling combustion inside a realistic can combustor. Combustion is treated with a presumed β-PDF plus steady laminar flamelet model using the San Diego mechanism. The central claim is that SST k-ω yields the most accurate mean axial and transverse velocities, TKE, shear stress, and flow topology (CRZ, CVC, compact stoichiometric bubble) despite its isotropic eddy-viscosity limitation, while also indicating efficient primary-zone combustion.

Significance. A well-substantiated ranking of common RANS models for industrial combustor geometries would be useful for practitioners. The realistic geometry and detailed mechanism are positive features. However, the absence of experimental reference data or quantitative error norms for this specific configuration substantially reduces the strength of the accuracy claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The repeated assertion that SST k-ω predicts velocities, TKE, and shear stress 'more accurately' than the other three models is not supported by any quantitative error metric, profile comparison, or experimental reference data for the can-combustor geometry. The ranking rests on visual inspection of contour plots and agreement with a-priori expectations for CRZ/CVC topology.
  2. [Modeling and Results] Modeling and Results sections: No grid-convergence study or discretization-error estimate is reported. Without such data it is impossible to determine whether observed differences between closures exceed numerical uncertainty.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state whether the plotted fields are time-averaged or instantaneous and should include the axial station or plane location for each panel.
  2. [Combustion modeling] The definition of the progress variable and the stoichiometric mixture-fraction value used to delineate the 'compact stoichiometric bubble' should be stated explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The repeated assertion that SST k-ω predicts velocities, TKE, and shear stress 'more accurately' than the other three models is not supported by any quantitative error metric, profile comparison, or experimental reference data for the can-combustor geometry. The ranking rests on visual inspection of contour plots and agreement with a-priori expectations for CRZ/CVC topology.

    Authors: We agree that the original wording overstated the strength of the comparison. No experimental data exist for this specific realistic can combustor, so quantitative error metrics or profile-based norms cannot be computed. The ranking was based on the clear, visually distinguishable differences in predicted flow topology (size and location of the CRZ and CVC) and on consistency with well-documented features of swirling combustor flows reported in the literature. In the revised manuscript we have replaced the phrase 'more accurately' with 'best qualitative agreement with expected flow topology and combustion indicators' in both the abstract and results section, and we have added an explicit limitations paragraph noting the absence of experimental benchmarks for this geometry. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Modeling and Results] Modeling and Results sections: No grid-convergence study or discretization-error estimate is reported. Without such data it is impossible to determine whether observed differences between closures exceed numerical uncertainty.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The submitted manuscript did not report a formal grid-convergence study. We will add a new subsection describing a three-grid refinement study (approximately 1.2 M, 2.5 M and 4.8 M cells) together with Grid Convergence Index (GCI) estimates for mean axial velocity, TKE and mixture fraction at representative locations. The additional results confirm that the differences between turbulence models remain larger than the estimated discretization uncertainty. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Absence of experimental reference data for the specific realistic can combustor geometry, which precludes quantitative error metrics or direct validation of the model ranking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard RANS model comparison against external physical expectations

full rationale

The paper conducts CFD simulations of a can combustor using established RANS closures (standard k-ε, realizable k-ε, SST k-ω, LPS-RSM) with constants taken from the literature and a presumed β-PDF + steady laminar flamelet combustion model. Accuracy rankings are judged by agreement with independently known flow features such as the presence and topology of the central recirculation zone (CRZ) and central vortex core (CVC), plus qualitative species and temperature fields. No parameters are fitted to the target geometry or data within the study, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise, and no derivation reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction. The evaluation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for swirling combustor physics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central ranking rests on the adequacy of the steady laminar flamelet model, the San Diego mechanism, and the standard empirical constants inside each RANS closure; none of these are re-derived or independently validated inside the paper.

free parameters (1)
  • Standard constants in k-ε, realizable k-ε, SST k-ω, and LPS-RSM closures
    Each RANS model contains several empirical coefficients calibrated on canonical flows and carried over without re-fitting here.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The San Diego reaction mechanism together with the steady laminar flamelet model adequately represents the finite-rate chemistry and turbulence-chemistry interaction for C3H8 non-premixed combustion.
    Invoked when the combustion sub-model is chosen; no sensitivity study to mechanism choice is reported.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5895 in / 1363 out tokens · 40008 ms · 2026-05-20T04:07:34.553271+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The non-premixed combustion modeling is performed using a presumed (beta) PDF approach in conjunction with a steady laminar flamelet model employing the San Diego reaction mechanism, and the turbulence is modeled using the RANS approach. ... SST k-ω ... predicted the mean axial velocity, mean transverse velocity, turbulent kinetic energy and shear stress more accurately.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The influence of turbulence models (standard k-ε, realizable k-ε, SST k-ω, LPS-RSM) on the velocity field ... is analyzed

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. A. Leyes, W. A. Fleming, The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 1999

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    H. I. H. Saravanamuttoo, G. F. C. Rogers, H. Cohen, P. V . Straznicky, A. C. Nix, Gas Turbine Theory, 7th ed., Pearson, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    J. D. Mallingly, Elements of Gas Turbine Propulsion, McGraw-Hill Education (India) Pvt, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    A. H. Lefebvre, D. R. Ballal, Gas Turbine Combustion: Alternative Fuels and Emissions, 3 ed., CRC Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    S. R. Turns, An Introduction To Combustion: Concepts And Applications, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    T. C. Lieuwen, V . Yang, Combustion Instabilities In Gas Turbine Engines: Operational Experience, Fundamental Mechanisms, and Modeling, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Huang, V

    Y . Huang, V . Yang, Dynamics and stability of lean-premixed swirl-stabilized combustion, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 35 (2009) 293–364. Doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2009.01.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2009.01.002 2009

  8. [8]

    Poinsot, D

    T. Poinsot, D. Veynante, Theoretical and Numerical Combustion, AFNIL, 2022. 47

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    N. J. Friswell, Emissions from gas-turbine-type combustors, in: Emissions from Continuous Combustion Sys- tems: Proceedings of the Symposium on Emissions from Continuous Combustion Systems held at the General Motors Research Laboratories Warren, Michigan September 27–28, 1971, Springer, 1972, pp. 161–182

    work page 1971

  10. [10]

    Katsuki, Y

    M. Katsuki, Y . Mizutani, K. Shibuya, Emissions from gas turbine combustors: Part 1, an experimental study on a model combustor, Bulletin of JSME 19 (1976) 1353–1359. Doi:10.1299/jsme1958.19.1353

    work page doi:10.1299/jsme1958.19.1353 1976

  11. [11]

    Mizutani, M

    Y . Mizutani, M. Katsuki, Emissions from gas turbine combustors: Part 2, analytical model and numerical analysis, Bulletin of JSME 19 (1976) 1360–1366. Doi:10.1299/jsme1958.19.1360

    work page doi:10.1299/jsme1958.19.1360 1976

  12. [12]

    N. J. Friswell, The influence of fuel composition on smoke emission from gas-turbine-type combustors: effect of combustor design and operating conditions, Combustion Science and Technology 19 (1979) 119–127

    work page 1979

  13. [13]

    J. R. Noyce, C. G. W. Sheppard, F. D. Yamba, Measurements of mixing and species concentra- tions within a gas turbine type combustor, Combustion Science and Technology 25 (1981) 209 – 217. Doi:10.1080/00102208108547503

    work page doi:10.1080/00102208108547503 1981

  14. [14]

    A. S. Green, J. H. Whitelaw, Isothermal models of gas-turbine combustors, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 126 (1983) 399–412

    work page 1983

  15. [15]

    W. P. Jones, J. Wilhelmi, Velocity, temperature and composition measurements in a confined swirl driven recirculating flow, Combustion Science and Technology 63 (1989) 13–31

    work page 1989

  16. [16]

    W. P. Jones, H. Toral, Temperature and composition measurements in a research gas turbine combustion cham- ber, Combustion Science and Technology 31 (1983) 249–275

    work page 1983

  17. [17]

    A. F. Bicen, W. P. Jones, Velocity characteristics of isothermal and combusting flows in a model combustor, Combustion Science and Technology 49 (1986) 1–15

    work page 1986

  18. [18]

    M. V . Heitor, J. H. Whitelaw, Velocity, temperature, and species characteristics of the flow in a gas-turbine combustor, Combustion and Flame 64 (1986) 1–32

    work page 1986

  19. [19]

    D. G. N. Tse, Flow and combustion characteristics of model annular and can-type combustors, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (University of London), 1988

    work page 1988

  20. [20]

    A. F. Bicen, D. G. N. Tse, J. H. Whitelaw, Combustion characteristics of a model can-type combustor, Combus- tion and Flame 80 (1990) 111–125

    work page 1990

  21. [21]

    R. D. Shah, J. Banerjee, Thermal and emission characteristics of a can combustor, Heat and Mass Transfer 52 (2016) 499–509

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    S. M. R. Sadat Akhavi, S. Tabejamaat, M. Eiddi Attar Zade, B. Kankashvar, Experimental and numerical study of combustion characteristics in a liquid fuel can micro-combustor, Aerospace Science and Technology 105 (2020) 106023

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    A. Liu, R. Fan, Q. Liu, L. Xi, W. Zeng, Numerical and experimental study on combustion characteristics of micro-gas turbine biogas combustor, Energies 15 (2022) 8302

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Zhang, X

    Y . Zhang, X. Li, Hybrid rans/les framework for taylor combustors: Enhancing nox prediction accuracy, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 145 (2023) 031005. Doi:10.1115/1.4063545

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4063545 2023

  25. [25]

    Patel, S

    R. Patel, S. Kumar, Machine learning-optimized swirler vane angles for reduced computational cost in combus- tor design, Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo GT2023 (2023) 100123. Doi:10.1115/GT2023-100123. 48

    work page doi:10.1115/gt2023-100123 2023

  26. [26]

    W. Chen, F. Liu, Ultrafast laser diagnostics (plif-oh*) for real-time flame-fluctuation interactions in gas turbine combustors, Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113234. Doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2023.12.048

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2023.12.048 2024

  27. [27]

    Sampath, V

    S. Sampath, V . Ganesan, Numerical predictions of 3-d reacting flows, Fuel 66 (1987) 421–430

    work page 1987

  28. [28]

    Biswas, K

    D. Biswas, K. Kawano, H. Iwasaki, M. Ishizuka, S. Yamanaka, Three-dimensional computation of gas turbine combustors and the validation studies of turbulence and combustion models, in: Proceedings of the ASME 1997 International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition, V olume 2: Coal, Biomass and Alternative Fuels; Combustion and Fuels; Oil and ...

    work page doi:10.1115/97- 1997

  29. [29]

    Chakraborty, P

    D. Chakraborty, P. J. Paul, H. S. Mukunda, Evaluation of combustion models for high speed h2/air confined mixing layer using dns data, Combustion and Flame 121 (2000) 195–209. Doi:10.1016/S0010-2180(99)00153- 4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0010-2180(99)00153- 2000

  30. [30]

    Di Mare, W

    F. Di Mare, W. P. Jones, K. R. Menzies, Large eddy simulation of a model gas turbine combustor, Combustion and Flame 137 (2004) 278–294

    work page 2004

  31. [31]

    Meloni, Pollutant emission validation of a heavy-duty gas turbine burner by cfd modeling, Machines 1 (2013) 81–97

    R. Meloni, Pollutant emission validation of a heavy-duty gas turbine burner by cfd modeling, Machines 1 (2013) 81–97

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    G. C. Krieger, A. P. V . Campos, M. D. B. Takehara, F. A. Da Cunha, C. A. G. Veras, Numerical simulation of oxy-fuel combustion for gas turbine applications, Applied Thermal Engineering 78 (2015) 471–481

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Sharma, H

    S. Sharma, H. Pingulkar, A. Chowdhury, S. Kumar, A new emission reduction approach in mild combustion through asymmetric fuel injection, Combustion and Flame 193 (2018) 61–75

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Z. Li, J. Wang, Artificial neural networks integrated with flamelet models for accelerated no x prediction in diffusion flames, Fuel 346 (2023) 129555. Doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129555

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129555 2023

  35. [35]

    Q. Wang, Y . Zhang, Transported pdf method with adaptive mesh refinement for high-resolution flame- strain interaction modeling, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 213 (2024) 124382. Doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2023.124382

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2023.124382 2024

  36. [36]

    Garcia, P

    M. Garcia, P. Rodriguez, Review of hybrid turbulence models (rans/les/dns) for gas turbine combustors: emerging frameworks and challenges, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 94 (2023) 101053. Doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2023.101053

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2023.101053 2023

  37. [37]

    A. C. Benim, S. Iqbal, F. Joos, A. Wiedermann, Numerical analysis of turbulent combustion in a model swirl gas turbine combustor, Journal of Combustion 2016 (2016) 572035. Doi:10.1155/2016/2572035

    work page doi:10.1155/2016/2572035 2016

  38. [38]

    Kumar, R

    A. Kumar, R. P. Bharti, Assessment of RANS-based turbulence models for isothermal confined swirling flow in a realistic can-type gas turbine combustor application, Journal of Computational Science 81 (2024) 102362. Doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2024.102362

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2024.102362 2024

  39. [39]

    M. F. T. d. V . Heitor, Experiments in turbulent reacting flows, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London, 1985

    work page 1985

  40. [40]

    J. Wang, Z. Hu, C. Du, L. Tian, J. Baleta, Numerical study of effusion cooling of a gas turbine combustor liner, Fuel 294 (2021) 120578

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    W. W. Liou, T.-H. Shih, On the basic equations for the second-order modeling of compressible turbulence, Technical Report 19920002084, NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States, 1991. 49

    work page 1991

  42. [42]

    Versteeg, W

    H. Versteeg, W. Malalasekera, An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite V olume Method, 2 ed., Pearson Education (US), 2007

    work page 2007

  43. [43]

    Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, 1 ed., CRC Press, 1980

    S. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, 1 ed., CRC Press, 1980

    work page 1980

  44. [44]

    M. S. Cellek, A. Pinarbasi, Investigations on performance and emission characteristics of an industrial low swirl burner while burning natural gas, methane, hydrogen-enriched natural gas and hydrogen as fuels, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43 (2018) 1194–1207

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    F. A. Williams, San diego mechanism, Reaction Design, San Diego, CA, 2010. Available from:http://web. eng.ucsd.edu/mae/combustion/sd_mech/

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    B. A. Kader, Temperature and concentration profiles in fully turbulent boundary layers, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 24 (1981) 1541–1544

    work page 1981

  47. [47]

    I. B. Celik, U. Ghia, P. J. Roache, C. J. Freitas, H. Coleman, P. E. Raad, Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications, Journal of Fluids Engineering 130 (2008) 078001

    work page 2008

  48. [48]

    Kumar, Investigation of in-nozzle flow characteristics of fuel injectors of IC engines, Ph.D

    A. Kumar, Investigation of in-nozzle flow characteristics of fuel injectors of IC engines, Ph.D. thesis, City, University of London, 2017

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Kumar, J

    A. Kumar, J. Nouri, A. Ghobadian, Predictions of vortex flow in a diesel multi-hole injector using the rans modelling approach, Fluids 6 (2021) 421

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    Kumar, A

    A. Kumar, A. Ghobadian, J. Nouri, Numerical simulation and experimental validation of cavitating flow in a multi-hole diesel fuel injector, International Journal of Engine Research 23 (2022) 958–973

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    S. Tang, R. Antonia, L. Djenidi, Approach towards local isotropy in statistically stationary turbulent shear flows, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 952 (2022) A17

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    D. C. Wilcox, et al., Turbulence modeling for CFD, volume 2, DCW industries La Canada, CA, 1998

    work page 1998

  53. [53]

    F. R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA Journal 32 (1994) 1598–1605

    work page 1994

  54. [54]

    URL:https://www

    ANSYS Inc., ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2011. URL:https://www. ansys.com, release 14.0

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    S. B. Pope, Turbulent Flows, Cambridge University Press, 2000

    work page 2000

  56. [56]

    Veynante, Large eddy simulations of turbulent combustion, in: Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp

    D. Veynante, Large eddy simulations of turbulent combustion, in: Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 113–138

    work page 2009

  57. [57]

    Blazek, Turbulence Modeling, in: Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and Applications, 3 ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015, pp

    J. Blazek, Turbulence Modeling, in: Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and Applications, 3 ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015, pp. 213–252. Doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-099995-1.00007-5

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-099995-1.00007-5 2015

  58. [58]

    S. K. Lele, Turbulence in compressible flows, in: P. Durbin (Ed.), Advanced Approaches in Turbulence, Elsevier, 2021, pp. 399 – 481. Doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-820774-1.00015-X

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820774-1.00015-x 2021

  59. [59]

    Peters, Laminar diffusion flamelet models in non-premixed turbulent combustion, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 10 (1984) 319–339

    N. Peters, Laminar diffusion flamelet models in non-premixed turbulent combustion, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 10 (1984) 319–339

    work page 1984

  60. [60]

    Dixon-Lewis, Structure of laminar flames, in: Symposium (International) on Combustion, volume 23, Elsevier, 1991, pp

    G. Dixon-Lewis, Structure of laminar flames, in: Symposium (International) on Combustion, volume 23, Elsevier, 1991, pp. 305–324. 50

    work page 1991

  61. [61]

    K. N. Bray, N. Peters, Laminar flamelets in turbulent flames, in: P. A. Libby, F. A. Williams (Eds.), Turbulent Reacting Flows, Academic Press, 1994, pp. 63–114

    work page 1994

  62. [62]

    Binniger, M

    B. Binniger, M. Chan, G. Paczkko, M. Herrmann, Numerical simulation of turbulent partially premixed hydro- gen flames with the flamelet model, Advanced Combustion GmbH, Internal Technical Report (1998)

    work page 1998

  63. [63]

    C. M. Müller, H. Breitbach, N. Peters, Partially premixed turbulent flame propagation in jet flames, in: Sympo- sium (international) on Combustion, volume 25, Elsevier, 1994, pp. 1099–1106

    work page 1994

  64. [64]

    Pitsch, N

    H. Pitsch, N. Peters, A consistent flamelet formulation for non-premixed combustion considering differential diffusion effects, Combustion and Flame 114 (1998) 26–40

    work page 1998

  65. [65]

    Pitsch, H

    H. Pitsch, H. Barths, N. Peters, Three-dimensional modeling of no x and soot formation in di-diesel engines using detailed chemistry based on the interactive flamelet approach, SAE Transactions (1996) 2010–2024

    work page 1996

  66. [66]

    J. S. Kim, F. A. Williams, Extinction of diffusion flames with nonunity Lewis numbers, Journal of engineering mathematics 31 (1997) 101–118

    work page 1997

  67. [67]

    B. E. Launder, D. B. Spalding, Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence, Academic Press, New York, 1972

    work page 1972

  68. [68]

    T.-H. Shih, W. W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, J. Zhu, A new k-epsilon eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows: Model development and validation, Technical Report, 1994

    work page 1994

  69. [69]

    Tennekes, J

    H. Tennekes, J. L. Lumley, A first course in turbulence, MIT press, 1972

    work page 1972

  70. [70]

    D. C. Wilcox, Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models, AIAA journal 26 (1988) 1299–1310

    work page 1988

  71. [71]

    D. C. Wilcox, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 2 ed., DCW Industries, La Canada, California, 1998

    work page 1998

  72. [72]

    M. M. Gibson, B. E. Launder, Ground effects on pressure fluctuations in the atmospheric boundary layer, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 86 (1978) 491–511. Doi:10.1017/S0022112078001251

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112078001251 1978

  73. [73]

    S. Fu, B. E. Launder, M. A. Leschziner, Modelling strongly swirling recirculating jet flow with reynolds-stress transport closures, in: Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows, 6th, Toulouse, France, Sept. 7-9, Proceedings (A88-38951 15-34). University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University, 1987, pp. 17–6–1 – 17–6–6

    work page 1987

  74. [74]

    presumed beta PDF

    B. E. Launder, Second-moment closure and its use in modelling turbulent industrial flows, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 9 (1989) 963–985. 51 Supporting Information Performance Evaluation of RANS-Based Turbulence Models in Predicting Turbulent Non-Premixed Swirling Combustion within a Realistic Can Com- bustor Aishvarya Kumara, Ram Prakash Bharti,b* a Depa...

    work page 1989