numerical simulation of heavy fuel oil combustion

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF HEAVY FUEL OIL COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS AND NOX EMISSIONS IN CALCINER IN CEMENT INDUSTRY

Eng. Hisham Aboelsaod Prof.Essam E. Khalil

Cairo University, Cairo Egypt Cairo University, Cairo Egypt

ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study is to numerically investigate

the combustion characteristics of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO)

and NOx emissions inside a calciner used in cement

industry. The calciner is a furnace placed before the rotary

Kiln its main objectives are the reduction of CO2

emissions and air pollutions while enhancing the cement

quality through separating the calcination and clinkering

processes. In order to conduct the present investigations

the calciner at CEMEX Egypt Cement Company was

considered and real dimensions and operating conditions

were applied. The combustion model was based on the

conserved scalar (mixture fraction) and prescribed

Probability Density Function (PDF) approach. The (RNG)

k-ε turbulence model has been used. The HFO droplet

trajectories were predicted by solving the momentum

equations for the droplets using Lagrangian treatment. The

radiation heat transfer equation was solved using P1

method. The formation of thermal NOx from molecular

nitrogen was modeled according to the extended

Zeldovich mechanism. The effects of varying the burner's

swirl number and viscosity grade on the combustion

performance of HFO and the resulting NOx emissions

were considered. The burner's swirl number influences the

mixing rate of air and fuel. A small swirl number ≤ 0.6 is

not desired as it elongates the flame; increases flue gases

temperatures and increases the NOx emissions inside the

calciner. A swirl number ≥ 0.6 is found optimal for good

combustion characteristics and NOx emissions

concentration. Meanwhile, it was found that the HFO

viscosity has a significant effect on the injection velocity

and must be considered as a function of temperature

during the analysis as this will significantly affects the

combustion characteristics.

Keywords: Combustion, Heavy Fuel Oil, Viscosity, Swirl

number effect, Nitrogen Oxides.

INTRODUCTION The main physico-chemical processes taking place in the

calciner are combustion and the strongly endothermic

calcination reaction of the raw materials CaCO3, the raw

material consist mainly of pulverized calcium carbonate

and silicon dioxide, passes through heating/drying at

temperatures from 100ºC to 500ºC the moisture evaporates

and after begin heated to the appropriate temperature, it

enters the calciner together with the fuel and the hot

gaseous from tertiary and kiln chamber, Figure 1. The

combustion heat released by the fuel causes calcination of

the raw material according to the reaction:

CaCO3 ------------- CaO + CO2 + 178 kj/mol

Combustion of HFO in Calciner

HFO combustion in calciner is non-premixed Liquid spray

combustion where a nozzle is used to atomize liquid fuel

into fine droplets injected in hot gaseous environment in

which it is mixed with the oxidizer. For calciner

combustion applications, the simple swirl nozzle is one of

the most common pressure atomizing nozzles. Transport,

dispersion, evaporation and combustion of liquid fuel

droplets and sprays are investigated in [1-3]. A few papers

conducted numerical and experimental studies of heavy

fuel oil spray combustion in cylindrical furnaces [4-6].

Barreiros et al. [4] investigated the effect of the burner

Proceedings of the ASME 2015 Power Conference POWER2015

June 28-July 2, 2015, San Diego, California

POWER2015-49569

1 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

geometry and inlet velocities on the final products

temperatures, velocities and concentration inside the

furnace. Byrnes et al. [5] carried out an experimental study

on the same furnace to predict the gas temperatures, CO2,

CO, O2 and NO concentrations as well as particulate

emissions for five flames with different air excess ratios,

swirl numbers, primary air excess ratios and atomizer cup

speeds. Wu et al. [6] investigated the contribution of the

number, location, type and firing mode of fuel oil

atomizers on NO emissions reduction in an industrial

burner with heavy fuel oil combustion and highly

preheated air. Furuhata et al. [7] modeled heavy fuel oil

spray flame stabilized by a baffle plate. They obtained

good results for flow field under isothermal conditions. In

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies, Physical

model performance depends critically on the accuracy of

fuel property values, and the effectiveness of CFD

modelling depends on the precision of fuel thermophysical

properties. Kyriakides et al. [8] developed a model to

investigate the effect of HFO thermo physical properties

and compared the results of their model against

experimental data of Chryssakis et al. [9]. Recent

computational studies utilizing a simple representation of

HFO composition have considered a two-component

approach, with the two components representing a residual

(heavy) and a cutter (light) part, both characterized by

vapor pressures which are increasing with temperature,

and constant or temperature-dependent values for dynamic

viscosity, density, latent heat, specific heat capacity and

surface tension [10], [11]. Kontoulis et al. [12] presented

a good study with a new detailed model for calculating

IFO thermophysical properties that had been developed in

the model for different IFO qualities, the model builds on

the assumption that marine HFO is a heavy petroleum

fraction of undefined composition. The effect of injection

fuel temperature on the penetration tip investigated by

considering a five temperature values, while the

penetration tip is decreasing with fuel initial temperature,

higher penetration with the cold spray due to its minimal

breakup, and illustrating a minimal breakup and

evaporation of the cold spray affected on the spray

distribution including Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD)

values.

The motivation of the present study is to improve the

combustion of HFO inside the calciner in cement industry

through investigating:

1- The effect of HFO viscosity grade on the injection

velocity and the resulting combustion characteristics.

Two different viscosity conditions were considered.

Constant viscosity with its value fixed at 1.7×10-5

kg/m.s and variable viscosity with temperature as

stated by [12], Figures 1 and 2.

2- Effect of swirl number variation on the resulting

mixing between droplets and oxidizer inside the

calciner and the resulting improvement on the

combustion.

Numerical Model The calciner furnace, Fig.3, was investigated numerically

in the present study. The height of the furnace is 25m and

its volume is 150m3. Exhaust gases from kiln chamber and

atmospheric air from tertiary duct enter the Calciner. Two

burner nozzles 6 mm diameter, Figs. 4 and 5, are placed in

the first 8 m height from the calciner bottom to spray the

HFO inside calciner. Burner #1 injects the HFO in the

opposite (Z) axis direction while burner #2 injects the

HFO in the opposite (X) axis direction. The injection

characteristics are reported in Table 1. 3D model for the

calciner and the mesh was generated using (ANSYS 14.0

package), grid approximately 6500000 cells.

Figure 1: Computed dynamic viscosity of HFO qualities

versus temperature. A corresponding curve for C14H30 is

also used [12]


Figure 4: Front view for the burner nozzle (6 mm)

Figure 2: Computed vapor pressure of HFO qualities versus

temperature. A corresponding curve for C14H30 was also

included used [12]

Figure 3: Calciner geometry and mesh

Figure 5: Side elevation of fuel distributer tangential slots

Tabel 1: Injection characteristics

MODELING FUEL OIL SPRAY COMBUSTION

In non-premixed combustion, fuel and oxidizer enter the

reaction zone in distinct streams. The present modeling of

mixture fraction [13,14] with the method of Probability

Density Function PDF with mixture fraction requires the

solution of transport equations for one or two conservative

scalar properties. The effect of turbulence is also

Inlet Boundary

Conditions

Burner #1

“ cone “

Burner #2

“ cone"

X- position, mm -100 794.09

Y-position, mm 4000 7200

Z-position, mm 609.09 -237

Axial velocity, m/s 40 & 80 40 & 80

Z-axis -1 --------

X-axis -------- -1

Cone angle 30 30

Swirl Number 0.1, 0.3, 0.6

and 2

0.1, 0.3, 0.6

and 2

Radius “cone”, mm 3 3

Fuel flow rate, kg/s 0.75 0.75

Prticle Diameter, µm 500 500


considered. The method of mixture fraction with

Probability Density Function PDF has been developed

specifically for turbulent chemically reacting flow

simulations. The chemical reaction is determined by

turbulent mixing. The mixture fraction is as :

0

0

kkF

kk

zz

zzf

(1)

The value of ƒ is calculated from the solution of a time

averaged transport equation

m

ii

i

i

i

i

Sx

f

xf

xf

t

)()(

Simultaneously with the solution of Eq. (2), a conservative

equation for the variance of mixture fraction, 2f

describing the interaction between chemistry and

turbulence, is solved:

2

2

222 )()(

fk

Cx

fC

x

f

xf

xf

t

d

i

ig

it

i

i

i

i

The turbulence flow of the gas phase in the furnace is

governed by the equations for the conservation of mass,

momentum and energy, The Renormalization Group (RNG)

k-ε model include the swirling effects were applied.

Radiative heat transfer in the furnace is solved using P-1

radiation model for exchange between gas and particulates.

Fuel droplets evaporate relatively quickly and influence

radiative heat transfer only in the near-burner region. The

weighted sum-of-gray-gases (WSGGM) model is used for

absorption coefficient of the gas phase.

Heavy fuel oil droplets

droplet size distributions were assumed uniform droplet

size 500 µm, injected from the cone atomizer with angle 30º

and nozzel diameter 6 mm figur 5, The particle trajectories

are calculated from their corresponding motion equation:

i

p

p

D fgiUpUFdt

dUp

)(

Where the subscript “p” denotes particle, ρp , up is the

droplet density and velocity respectively, For spherical

particles, u and ρ is the gas phase velocity and density

respectively. The right hand side are the drag force per unit

of droplet mass and force of gravity on the droplet,

respectively.

Particle Heat transfer Model

To predict the vaporization from a discrete phase droplet,

when the temperature of the droplet reaches the

vaporization temperature Tvap, and continues until the

droplet reaches the boiling point Tbp, or until the droplet

volatile fraction is completely consumed

0,0, )1( pvp

bppvap

mfm

TTT

The effect of the convection flow of the evaporating from

the droplet surface to the bulk gas phase (Stefan flow), and

the vapor flux from the equation below becomes a source

of species I in the gas phase species transport equation.

)( ,, isici CCkN

Where Ni is the molar flux of vapor into the gas phase

(kmol/m2-s), Kc is convective mass transfer coefficient

(m/s), Ci,s and Ci,∞ stand for the vapor concentration at the

deroplet surface (kmol/m3) and in the bulk gas (kmol/m

3).

The boiling point Tpb and the latent heat hfg are defined as

constant property inputs for the droplet particle materials.

in the evaporation process, as the particle change its

temperature, the latent heat will vary according to:

bp

p

bp

p

T

T

pp

T

T

bpfggpfg dTchdTch ...

Include the droplet temperature effects on the latent heat by

selecting the “temperature dependent latent heat “option in

the discrete phase model. The droplet temperature is

updated according to a heat balance that relates the sensible

heat change in the droplet to the convective and latent heat

transfer between the droplet and the continuous phase:

)()(44

pRppfg

p

pp

p

pp TAhdt

dmTThA

dt

dTcm

Where CP is the droplet heat capacity (j/kg-k), Tp is the

droplet temperature (k), h is the convective heat transfer

coefficient (W/m2-k), T∞ the temperature of continuous

phase, dmp/dt is rate of evaporation (kg/s), hfg is latent heat (

j/kg), εp is particle emissivity (dimensionless), σ is stefan-

boltzmann constant (5.67×10-8

W/m2-k

4), θR is radiation

temperature. Radiation heat transfer to the particle is

included using the “particle radiation interaction“ When the

vaporization rate is computed by the convection/diffusion

controlled model, the convection heat transfer coefficient

“h” is calculated with a modified Nu number as follows:

)PrRe6.02()1ln( 3/12/1

d

p

B

B

k

hdNu

Where dp is the particle diameter, K∞ is the thermal

conductivity of the contiuous phase (w/m-k), Pr is prandtl

number of the continuous phase (CPu/K∞), BT is the

spalding heat transfer and is equal to the spalding mass

transfer number Bm. To predict the convective boiling of a

discrete phase droplet when the temperature of the droplet

has reached the boiling temperature Tbp, and while the mass

of the droplet exceed the nonvolatile fraction, ( 1-ƒv,0 ):

Tp ≥ Tbp and mp > ( 1-ƒv,0 ) mp,0 (10)

When the droplet temperature reaches the boiling point, a

boiling rate equation is applied, the mass transfer from the

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(3)

(2)

(4)


droplet to the gas phase is computed from the following

equation

)()(44

pRppppfg

pTATThAh

dt

dm (11)

vaporization and the boiling point temperature are 400 K

and 589 K, respectively.

3.3 Defining the dynamic viscosity and vapour pressure

In the present work for the CFD model HFO combustion

we depend on the data output from Kontoulis et al. [12].

For setting the dynamic viscosity and vapor pressure as

function with the temperature. From the Figures 2 and 3,

the CFD model HFO combustion for the main

thermophysical fuel properties were selected, and constant

values for the enthalpy, latent heat at vaporization

temperature 400 K were used. The numerical model for

combustion of heavy fuel oil is verified against data

collected from the practical consumption in the Calciner for

24 hours clinker production at one kiln line for cement

production. Boundary conditions for the fuel and the

oxidizer stream as well as the kiln line operating conditions

are reported in Table 2.

Table 2: Fuel Content by species in mass fraction.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION HFO combustion in calciner is investigated in 3D model

with two setting for dynamic viscosity and injection

velocity. Constant viscosity value 1.7×10-5

kg/m.s with

injection velocity 40 m/s and viscosity function as

temperature start value 0.02 kg/m.s at the vaporization

temperature 400 K [12], and injection velocity 80 m/s and

40 m/s. Spray combustion of HFO is modeled using cone

angle 30º, particles diameter 500 µm, and the swirl number

is varied as 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 and 2.

The influence of viscosity grade on the HFO combustion

characteristics.

Figure 6 compare the combustion characteristics for the

two cases viscosity variation for swirl number 0.1.

Temperature distribution plane Y and Z at the center burner

#1 (a, c), and plane Y and X at the center burner #2 (b, d).

It is obvious from the figure 6 (c), the delay time of the

combustion starting especially with spray fuel oil injected

from burner #1 for the viscosity function as temperature.

This delay is a result of the injection of the fuel with high

viscosity at the vaporization temperature. The high

viscosity value at the evaporation temperature and its

variation with temperature as [12] adds a delay time before

the start of the combustion process to change the phase of

the fuel from liquid phase to vapor phase. In the constant

viscosity case figure 6 (a), the fuel is defined to be injected

in the vapor phase directly. Also, from the figure 6 (c, d) it

is observable that only small portion of the injected fuel is

combusted while the rest is combusted in the area

surrounding burner #2. Also, it is observable that the

maximum temperature inside the calciner, 2200K, is higher

than the corresponding maximum temperature in the case

of constant viscosity which was 2000K only. This is a

result of the delay in the combustion of burner #1 and the

concentration of the combustion in the area surrounding

burner #2. This in turn maximizes the heat released in this

region. Close to Burner #2, the temperature is higher than

that around burner #1 and the evaporation process takes

place more rabidly.

Composition

(mass fraction)

Heavy fuel oil

composition

Oxidizer

[Tertiary Duct]

Secandary Oxidizer

[kiln Chamber]

Carbon % 86.71 Hydrogen % 10.78

Nitrogen % 0. 21 Oxygen % 0. 21

Sulfure % 2.622

CO2 - - 0.12 O2 - 0.733 0.05

N2 - 0.233 0.83 Heavy fuel oil properties

Lower heating value, MJ-kg-1 4.231

Specific heat J/kg 2100 Molecular weight 430

Boundary Condition Inlet Temperature, K 400 1123 1300

Inlet Velocity, m/s 29 22 Mass flow rate, kg/s 1.5 69 42.46

Area, m2

1.93 2.378


a) Burner #1, const viscosity b) Burner #2, const viscosity

c) Burner #1, viscosity Function temperature d) Burner #2, viscosity Function temperature

Figure 6: Temperature distribution in the plane of burner #1 and burner #2 axis for two cases,oK, at constant viscosity (a,b)

and variation of viscosity with temperature (c,d) for S = 0.1

The influence of the swirl number on combustion

characteristics.

High swirl number (S) strenghtens the circulation zone and

enhances mixing. By comparing Figure 6 it is observiable

that the circulation zone is narrow with S= 0.1 which leads

to elongated flame. Meanwhile, with S = 0.6, Fig.7, the

circulation zone is wider than that observed with S = 0.1

and the mixing is better. The latter leads to improved

temperature distribution inside the Calciner with S = 0.6

case. And disapperance of the flame shape when compared

with the cases of S= 0.1 and 0.3.

The influence of viscosity grade on droplet trajectory

penetration.

At constant viscosity, an injection velocity of 40 m/s was

considered Figure 8a, then 80 m/s as in Figure 8b. Injecting

the HFO with high viscosity grade affected the penetration

depth inside the calciner as is clear from Figure 8 and 9 for

burners # 2 for S = 0.1 and 0.6 respectively. The change in

the penetration depth affects the combustion characteristics

as it affects the interaction between the fuel and the

oxidizer streams. This is confirms that the change in the

viscosity grade has a significant effect on the HFO

penetration depth.


a) Burner #1, viscosity Function temperature b) Burner #2, viscosity Function temperature

Figure 7: Temperature distribution in plane of burner #1 and #2 axis, oK, variable viscosity with temperature for S = 0.6

a) Burner #1, Injection Velocity 40 m/s b) Burner #2, Injection Velocity 80 m/s

Figure 8: Contours of particle injection velocity burner 1& 2, for two cases,m/s,

constant viscosity (a,b) and variation viscosity with temperature (c,d), S = 0.1

a) Injection velocity 40 m/s b) Injection velocity 80 m/s c) Injection velocity 40 m/s

Figure 9: Contours of injection velocity burner #2,m/s, constant viscosity

(a), variable viscosity with temperature (b) & (c), for swirl number 0.6


CO concentration comparision, Center line axis of

burner #1

Figures 10 and 11, are the CO concentration variation with

axial position for burner #1. The figures support the

previous findings presented for the influence of the

viscosity grade variation on the heavy fuel oil spray

combustion charactarestics and the influences of the swirl

numbers on enhances the fuel mixing rate with the oxidizer,

Fig. 10 show the CO concentration comparision for the

case constant viscosity with injection velocity 40 m/s, and

the case viscosity variabe as temperature with injection

velocity 80 m/s, for swirl number 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 and 2. For

constant viscosity the spray combustion is defined to be

injected the domain approximatly at the vapor phase, so the

CO concentration started earleir, from the position burner

#1 injection position X= -609.09 mm. For the case variable

viscosity with temperature, the delay for CO concentration

is a result of the injection of the fuel with a high viscosity

value at vaporization temperature.

Figure 10: CO concentration across axial center burner #1, for case viscosity constant with injection velocity 40 m/s and

case viscosity variable with temperature, for S= 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 and 2.

Figure 11 is the CO concentration with axial position for

burner #1 at two different injection velocities,40 and 80

m/s, for viscosity variable with temperature. In general,

increasing the injection velocity enhances the penetration of

the injected fuel and hence the mixing with the oxdizer.

This is clear from comparing the CO concentration in the

two cases at different swirl numbers. It is observale from

the figure that the CO concentration is higher in the case of

low injection velocity especially at high swirling numbers,

S= 0.6 and 2.0 the CO concentration is very high close to

the burner location and then it reduces suddenly with axial

distance from the burner. This is a result of the low rate of

evaporation of the HFO and the reduction in the oxdizer

quantity. For swirl number 0.1 and 0.3 the CO

concentration is reduced, compared to the two cases of 0.6

and 2.0, because of the enhanced penetration and hence the

availability of more oxdizer quantities. Figure 12, show the

plane temperature distribution for the two axial burner #1

and #2 with injection velocity 40 m/s, for S= 0.3, the figure

support the previous finding presented for the CO

concentration above as Figure 11.

NO emissions concentration

The heavy fuel oil in present study contains 0.21% of

nitrogen, as shown in Table 2. Figure 13, are the thermal

NO emission rate along the centerlines of burners #1, show

the thermal NO rate for the combustion simulation for the

viscosity variable temperature with two injection velocity

40m/s and 80m/s, for considered S = 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 and 2.

Accoring to the Figure 13 for the thermal NO around the

center burner #1, it is clear the high rate NO formation for

the case injection velocity 40 m/s resulting by the high

temperature at the region front burner #1, and then increase

gradually to the center of the furnace resulting the precence

of sufficient quantities of oxygen and nitrogen affected by

the low penetration depth of the injection dropet fuel and

weak mixing with the oxidizer. Figure 12a for temperature

plane burner #1 enhancing our analysis. For the case

injection velocity 80m/s, the apsence of the high

temperature at the region front burner #1, and the good

mixing rate between the oxidizer and the fuel affected to

decrease the NO thermal rate.


Figure 11: CO concentration across axial center burner #1, for case viscosity variable with temperature, with injection

velocity 40 m/s and 80 m/s, for S= 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 and 2.

a)Burner 2, Injection Velocity 40 m/s b)Burner 1, Injection Velocity 40 m/s

Figure 12: Temperature distribution in the plane of burner #1 and burner #2 axis,oK ,

for case variation viscosity with temperature, for S = 0.3

Figure 13: Rate of thermal NO across axial center burner #1, for case viscosity variable with temperature, with injection

velocity 40 m/s and 80 m/s, for S= 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 and 2.


CONCLUSIONS A numerical Computational Fluid Dynamics model was

developed using the ANSYS 14 software. The effect of

Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) viscosity and swirl number on the

combustion characteristics inside the Calciner was

investigated. The HFO used throughout this study is

Bunker C6. The numerical model is based on the solution of

Navier-stockes equation for the gas flow, and on dynamics

model with the influence of turbulence simulated by a two-

equation (k-ε) model.

The results of the simulations conducted can be

summarized in the following points.

1. The HFO viscosity must be considered as a function

of temperature during the analysis because it

significantly affects the combustion characteristics.

2. The viscosity grade affects the HFO penetration depth

inside the calciner, increasing the HFO viscosity

reduces the penetration depth for the same injection

velocity. This in turn affects the CO and NO

emissions distribution along the burners axes.

3. Based on the present study results it could be

concluded than A swirl number of 0.6 with cone angle

of 30 degrees results in highest combustion

improvements.

4. The CO and NO concentrations inside the Calciner are

highly dependent on the swirl number and HFO

injection velocity.

NOMENCLATURE

𝐶𝜀1, 𝐶𝜀2 turbulence model constant in the 𝜀 –equation

𝐶𝜇 constant in the definition of turbulent viscosity

𝐶𝑃 D

specific heat at constant pressure [J/Kg K]

molecular diffusion coefficient

f Mixture Fraction

ℎ𝑠 Sensible enthalpy, kJ/kg

I number of species fluctuation intensity

k turbulent Kinetic energy, m2/s2

𝑙𝑚 turbulent mixing length, m

P pressure[N/ m2]

𝑄𝑗 ratio of the heat released from reaction j

r radius of inlet fuel and air zone

Sϕ source term

t time, s

T temperature(K)

To. reference temperature

U mean velocity components, m/s

u Fluctuating velocity components. m/s

U axial velocity, m/s

V velocity magnitude, m/s

W Velocity component in y direction, m/s

𝑊j reaction rate of the reaction j

REFERENCES

[1] Bachalo, W.: Injection, dispersion and combustion of

liquid fuels, 25th Int Symp on Combustion, The

Combustion Institute, 333-371, 1994

[2] Chiu, H.H.: Advances and challenges in droplet and

spray combustion: Toward a unified theory of droplet

aerothermochemistry, Progress in Energy and Combustion

Science (2000) 26, 381-416.

[3] Faeth, GM. ,Proc Combust Inst 1996; 26:1593.

[4] Barreiros, A., Carvalho, M.G., Costa, M., Lockwood,

F.C.: Prediction of the near burner region and

measurements of NOx and particulate emissions in heavy

fuel oil spray flames, Combustion and Flame (1993) 92,

231-240.

[5] Byrnes, M.A., Foumeny, E.A., Mahmud, T., Sharifaha,

A.S.A.K., Abbas, T., Costen, P.G., Lockwood, F.C.:

Measurements and predictions of nitric oxide and

particulates emissions from heavy fuel oil spray flames,

26th Int Symp on Combustion, The Combustion Institute,

2241-2250, 1996.

[6] Wu, S.-R., Chang, W.-C., Chiao, and J.: Low NOx

heavy fuel oil combustion with high temperature air, Fuel

(2007) 86, 820-828.

[7] Furuhata T, Tanno S, Miura T, Ikeda Y, Nakajima T.

Energy Convers Manage 1997;38:1111.

[8] Kyriakides N., Chryssakis C., Kaiktsis L., SAE 2009-

01-1858 (2009).

[9] Chryssakis C., Pantazis K., Kaiktsis L., CIMAC

Congress, Bergen, Norway, Jun 2010, Paper No. 236.

[10] Goldsworthy L., International Journal of Engine

Research, 7: pp. 181-199 (2006).

[11] Struckmeier, D., Ph.D. Thesis, Kyushu University,

Japan (2010).

[12] Panagiotis Kontoulis, Dimitris Kazangas, and Lambros

Kaiktsis: A new model for marine Heavy Fuel Oil thermo

physical properties: validation in a constant volume spray

chamber; National Technical University of Athens, Greece.

European Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray

Systems , Chania, Greece, 1-4 September 2013

[13] Shivatahnu Y.R., Faeth, G.M. , Generalized state

relationships for scalar properties in non-premixed

hydrocarbon/air flames, Combustion and Flame 82 (1990)

211–230.

[14] Jonesm, W.P. ,Whitelaw, , J.H. Calculations methods

for reacting turbulent flows: a review, combustion and

flame 48 ( 1982 ) I-26.


numerical simulation of heavy fuel oil combustion

Documents