Advertisement

Numerical study for the assessment of pollutant dispersion from a thermal power plant under the different temperature regimes

  • A. IssakhovEmail author
  • A. Mashenkova
Original Paper
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, numerical simulation of motion and dispersion of pollutant emissions into the atmosphere under real atmospheric conditions were considered. To solve this problem, a system of Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations was used, and the standard k-epsilon and SST k-omega turbulence models were used to close this system of equations. Moreover, the test problem was solved numerically to verify the mathematical model and numerical algorithm. The obtained numerical results were compared with the experimental data and modeling results of well-known authors. A proven mathematical model and numerical algorithm was used to describe the process of pollutant emissions from Ekibastuz SDPP (Ekibastuz State District power plant) chimneys and the spread of CO2 in the air flow field under real atmospheric conditions. For this problem, four different speed regimes (the first—0.5 m/s and 1 m/s, the second—1 m/s and 1.5 m/s, the third—2 m/s and 4 m/s, and the fourth—4 m/s and 5 m/s), as well as three different temperature regimes (constant temperature, decrease temperature, and temperature inversion) were considered.

Keywords

Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) Jet in crossflow Pollutant dispersion SIMPLE algorithm Temperature inversion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the grant from the Ministry of education and science of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. Acharya S, Tyagi M, Hoda A (2001) Flow and heat transfer predictions for film-cooling. Ann NY Acad Sci 934:110–125Google Scholar
  2. Ajersch P, Zhou JM, Ketler S, Salcudean M, Gartshore IS (1995) Multiple jets in a cross flow: detailed measurements and numerical simulations. In: International gas turbine and aeroengine congress and exposition, ASME Paper 95-GT-9, Houston, TX, June 1995, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  3. Amer AA, Jubran BA, Hamdan MA (1992) Comparison of different two-equation turbulence models for prediction of film cooling from two rows of holes. Numer Heat Transf Pt A 21:143–162Google Scholar
  4. Aranda-Uson A, Lopez-Sabiron AM, Ferreira G, Llera Sastresa E (2013) Uses of alternative fuels and raw materials in the cement industry as sustainable waste management options. Renew Sust Energy Rev 23:242–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.024 Google Scholar
  5. Barros CP, Wanke P (2017) Efficiency in Angolan thermal power plants: evidence from cost structure and pollutant emissions. Energy 130:129Google Scholar
  6. Chai X, Iyer PS, Mahesh K (2015) Numerical study of high speed jets in crossflow. J Fluid Mech 785:152–188Google Scholar
  7. Chang Y (2012) China needs a tighter PM2.5 limit and a change in priorities. Environ Sci Technol 46(13):7069–7070Google Scholar
  8. Chen YZ, Lu HW, Li J, Huang GH, He L (2016) Regional planning of new-energy systems within multi-period and multi-option contexts: a case study of Fengtai, Beijing, China. Renew Sust Energy Rev 65:356–372Google Scholar
  9. Chen YZ, He L, Guan YL, Lu HW, Li J (2017) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and water-energy optimization for shale gas supply chain planning based on multi-level approach: case study in Barnett, Marcellus, Fayetteville, and Haynesville shales. Energy Convers Manag 134:382–398Google Scholar
  10. Garg VK, Gaugler RE (1995) Effect of velocity and temperature distribution at the hole exit on film cooling of turbine blades. In: International gas turbine and aeroengine congress and exposition, ASME Paper 95-GT-2, Houston, TX, June 1995, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  11. Gurney KR (2013) Beyond hammers and nails: mitigating and verifying greenhouse gas emissions. EOS 94:199Google Scholar
  12. Gurney KR, RomeroLankao P, Seto KC, Hutyra LR, Duren R, Kennedy C, Grimm NB, Ehleringer JR, Marcotullio P, Hughes S, Pincetl S, Chester MV, Runfola DM, Feddema JJ, Sperling J (2015) Climate change: track urban emissions on a human scale. Nature 525:179–181Google Scholar
  13. Hassan I, Findlay M, Salcudean M, Gartshore I (1998) Prediction of film cooling with compound-angle injection using different turbulence models. In: 6th annual conference of the computational fluid dynamics society of Canada, Quebec, QC, Canada, June 1998, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  14. Huy LN, Oanh NTK (2017) Assessment of national emissions of air pollutants and climate forcers from thermal power plants and industrial activities in Vietnam. Atmos Pollut Res 8(3):503–513Google Scholar
  15. Issakhov A (2014) Modeling of synthetic turbulence generation in boundary layer by using zonal RANS/LES method. Int J Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 15(2):115–120.  https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnsns-2012-0029 Google Scholar
  16. Issakhov A (2016) Mathematical modeling of the discharged heat water effect on the aquatic environment from thermal power plant under various operational capacities. Appl Math Model 40(2):1082–1096Google Scholar
  17. Issakhov A (2017) Numerical study of the discharged heat water effect on the aquatic environment from thermal power plant by using two water discharged pipes. Int J Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 18(6):469–483Google Scholar
  18. Issakhov A, Zhandaulet Y, Nogaeva A (2018) Numerical simulation of dam break flow for various forms of the obstacle by VOF method. Int J Multiph Flow.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2018.08.003 Google Scholar
  19. Issakhov A, Bulgakov R, Zhandaulet Y (2019) Numerical simulation of the dynamics of particle motion with different sizes. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 13(1):1–25Google Scholar
  20. Jovanovic V, Komatina M (2012) NOx and SO2 emission factors for Serbian lignite Kolubara. Therm Sci 16(4):1213–1228Google Scholar
  21. Keimasi MR, Taeibi-Rahni M (2001) Numerical simulation of jets in a crossflow using different turbulence models. AIAA J 39(12):2268Google Scholar
  22. Kim SW, Benson TJ (1993) Fluid flow of a row of jets in crossflow—a numerical study. AIAA J 31(5):806–811Google Scholar
  23. Kozic MS (2015) A numerical study for the assessment of pollutant dispersion from Kostolac B power plant to Viminacium for different atmospheric conditions. Therm Sci 19(2):425–434Google Scholar
  24. McKain K, Wofsy SC, Nehrkorn T, Eluszkiewicz J, Ehleringer JR, Stephens BB (2012) Assessment of ground-based atmospheric observations for verification of greenhouse gas emissions from an urban region. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (PNAS) 109:8423–8428Google Scholar
  25. McKain K, Down A, Raciti SM, Budney J, Hutyra LR, Floerchinger C, Herndon SC, Nehrkorn T, Zahniser MS, Jackson RB, Phillips N, Wofsy SC (2015) Methane emissions from natural gas infrastructure and use in the urban region of Boston, Massachusetts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (PNAS) 112:1941–1946Google Scholar
  26. Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598Google Scholar
  27. Muppidi S, Mahesh K (2007) Direct numerical simulation of round turbulent jets in crossflow. J Fluid Mech 574:59–84Google Scholar
  28. Richards PJ, Hoxey RP (1993) Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k-epsilon turbulence model. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 46–47:145–153Google Scholar
  29. Shan JW, Dimotakis PE (2006) Reynolds-number effects and anisotropy in transverse-jet mixing. J Fluid Mech 566:47–96Google Scholar
  30. Toja-Silva F, Peralta C, Lopez O, Navarro J, Cruz I (2015) Roof region dependent wind potential assessment with different RANS turbulence models. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 142:258–271Google Scholar
  31. Toja-Silva F, Chen J, Hachinger S, Hase F (2017) CFD simulation of CO2 dispersion from urban thermal power plant: analysis of turbulent Schmidt number and comparison with Gaussian plume model and measurements. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 169:177–193Google Scholar
  32. Tsuchiya M, Murakami S, Mochida A, Kondo K, Ishida Y (1997) Development of a new k-epsilon model for flow and pressure fields around bluff body. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 67–68:169–182Google Scholar
  33. van der A RJ, Mijling B, Ding J, Koukouli ME, Liu F, Li Q, Mao H, Theys N (2016) Cleaning up the air: effectiveness of air quality policy for SO2 and NOx emissions in China. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 17:1775Google Scholar
  34. Walters DK, Leylek JH (1997) A systematic computational methodology applied to a three-dimensional film cooling flow field. J Turbomach 119:777–785Google Scholar
  35. Yoshie R, Mochida A, Tominaga Y, Kataoka H, Harimoto K, Nozu T, Shirasawa T (2007) Cooperative project for CFD prediction of pedestrian wind environment in the Architectural Institute of Japan. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 95:1551–1578Google Scholar
  36. Zeebe RE, Ridgwell A, Zachos JC (2016) Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years. Nat Geosci 9:325–329Google Scholar
  37. Zhang L, Lee CS, Zhang R, Chen L (2017) Spatial and temporal evaluation of long term trend (2005–2014) of OMI retrieved NO2 and SO2 concentrations in Henan Province, China. Atmos Environ 154:151–166Google Scholar
  38. Zheng C, Zhao C, Li Y, Wu X, Zhang K, Gao J, Chai F (2018) Spatial and temporal distribution of NO2 and SO2 in Inner Mongolia urban agglomeration obtained from satellite remote sensing and ground observations. Atmos Environ 188:50–59Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Al-Farabi Kazakh National UniversityAlmatyRepublic of Kazakhstan
  2. 2.Kazakh British Technical UniversityAlmatyRepublic of Kazakhstan

Personalised recommendations