Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 1973–1979 | Cite as

Effect of devolatilization model on flame structure of pulverized coal combustion in a jet-burner system

  • Seongyool Ahn
  • Hiroaki WatanabeEmail author
  • Toshiaki Kitagawa


A numerical simulation was performed with the two competing model in the devolatilization process for a pulverized coal combustion jet flame by means of LES. The target was a simple jet burner flame in CRIEPI. To solve the LES equations, a CFD code FFR. Comb was employed with the dynamic Smagorinsky SGS turbulent model. A simple global kinetic mechanism was implemented to predict combustion of the gas and solid phase combustion. The interactions between the two phases were calculated by PSI-Cell model while the reaction rate in turbulent flow was established by SSFRRM. The simulation was validated by comparing results to the experimental data in terms of particle dispersion and velocity as well as gaseous velocity. The flame structure was discussed with temperature, mole fraction of major species. In addition, the effect of the devolatilization model was investigated simultaneously by comparing to another simulation that employed the single first order reaction model because the devolatilization was one of the major processes in coal combustion and it had an influence on the flame structure from all reactive regions. The release rate was calculated by two different parameter sets in the Arrhenius rate equation for the two competing model that were corresponding different temperature regions whereas the released rate was determined by only one fixed parameter set in the single first order reaction model. From the simulation, it was revealed that the main reactions took place at the upstream and the first fuel oxidation was stronger at the inner reaction zone comparing to the far side combustion. It was confirmed as well that the two competing model could capture the quick devolatilization faster than the single first order reaction model though the dominant part appeared later than the single first order reaction model.


Two competing model Devolatilization Numerical simulation LES Pulverized coal combustion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    World energy council, World Energy Resources 2016 (2016).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    H. Watanabe, S. Ahn and K. Tanno, Numerical investigation of effects of CO2 recirculation in an oxy-fuel IGCC on gasification characteristics of a two-stage entrained flow coal gasifier, Energy, 118 (2017) 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    H. Watanabe, R. Kurose and S. Komori, Large-eddy simulation of swirling flows in a pulverized coal combustion furnace with a complex burner, J. Environ. Eng., 4 (1) (2009) 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    N. Hashimoto, R. Kurose and H. Shirai, Numerical simulation of pulverized coal jet flame employing the TDP model, Fuel, 97 (2012) 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Kleissl, V. Kumar, C. Meneveau and M. B. Parlange, Numerical study of dynamic Smagorinsky models in large-eddy simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: Validation in stable and unstable conditions, Water Resour. Res., 42 (6) (2006).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. P. Sharma and D. E. Stock, The particle-source-ln cell (PSI-CELL) model for gas-droplet flows, J. Fluids Eng., (1977) 325–332.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    H. Watanabe, D. Uesugi and M. Muto, Effects of parcel modeling on particle dispersion and interphase transfers in a turbulent mixing layer, Adv. Powder Technol., 26 (6) (2015) 1719–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Ahn, K. Tanno and H. Watanabe, Numerical analysis of particle dispersion and combustion characteristics on a piloted coaxial pulverized coal jet flame, Appl. Therm. Eng., 124 (2017) 1194–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    H. Kobayashi, J. B. Howard and A. F. Sarofim, Coal devolatilization at high temperatures, Symposium (international) on Combustion, 16 (1) (1977) 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    P. E. DesJardin and S. H. Frankel, Large eddy simulation of a nonpremixed reacting jet: Application and assessment of subgrid-scale combustion models, Phys. Fluids, 10 (9) (1998) 2298–2314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    I. Danaila and B. J. Boersma, Mode interaction in a forced homogeneous jet at low Reynolds numbers, Proceedings of the Summer Program (1998) 141–158.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. A. Field, Rate of combustion of size-graded fractions of char from a low-rank coal between 1200 K and 2000 K, Combust. Flame, 13 (3) (1969) 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. M. Hwang, R. Kurose, F. Akamatsu, H. Tsuji, H. Makino and M. Katsuki, Application of optical diagnostics techniques to a laboratory-scale turbulent pulverized coal flame, Energy & Fuels, 19 (2) (2005) 382–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    W. Zhang, K. Tainaka, S. Ahn, H. Watanabe and T. Kitagawa, Experimental and numerical investigation of effects of particle shape and size distribution on particles’ dispersion in a coaxial jet flow, Adv. Powder Technol., 29 (10) (2018) 2322–2330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© KSME & Springer 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seongyool Ahn
    • 1
  • Hiroaki Watanabe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Toshiaki Kitagawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations