International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene

The effect of thermal radiation and radiation models on

hydrogen–hydrocarbon combustion modelling
Mustafa Ilbas∗
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, Erciyes University, 38039 Kayseri, Turkey

Received 26 July 2004; received in revised form 1 September 2004

Available online 11 November 2004

Abstract
This paper presents numerical simulation results from the modelling of a turbulent non-premixed hydrogen (H2 ) and
hydrogen–hydrocarbon flame with and without radiation models. CFD studies using Fluent code were carried out for three
cases; without radiation model, with the P-1 radiation model and with the discrete transfer radiation model. The model results
from these three cases are compared with each other and with the experimental results. The effects of fuel composition from
pure natural gas to hydrogen (100% CH4 , 70% H2 + 30% CH4 , and 100% H2 ) were also investigated. The predictions
are validated and compared against the experimental results obtained in this study and results from the literature. Turbulent
diffusion flames are investigated numerically using a finite volume method for the solution of the conservation equations and
reaction equations governing the problem. The standard k–
model was used for the modelling of the turbulence phenomena
in the combustor. The chemical combustion reactions are described by seven species and three steps. A NOx post-processor
has been used for predicting NOx emissions from the combustor. Using the both radiation models caused over all lower
temperature levels for all fuel compositions compared with the results obtained using no radiation model. The results with the
radiation models are in better agreement with the measurements compared with the results without radiation model. The use
of a radiation model predicts lower over all temperature, thus lower NOx emissions.
䉷 2004 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Combustion modelling; Hydrogen and hydrocarbon combustion; Radiation models; NOx formation

1. Introduction or hydrogen–hydrocarbon composite fuels is a great inter-

Thermal radiation heat transfer involving gases can be
an important mode of heat transfer in high-temperature
combustors and furnaces, even under non-soot conditions.
In hydrocarbon fuel combustion, the familiar products
of combustion H2 O, CO2 , CO are particularly important
owing to their comparatively high absorptivities and emis-
sivities in the near infrared region. The computation fluid
dynamic (CFD) modelling of combustors burning hydrogen
∗ Tel.: +90 352 4374901; fax: +90 352 3302740.
E-mail address: ilbas@erciyes.edu.tr (M. Ilbas).
est to researchers and designers because of the complexity
of combustion process and flow field in such devices. Ig-
noring thermal radiation heat transfer may cause significant
errors in the overall predictions. Thermal radiation affects
the structure and combustion characteristics of hydrocarbon
and composite fuels, as well as the NO formation due to the
sensitivity of thermal NO kinetics to temperature. The non-
accurate prediction of combustion phonemena in the mod-
elling of hydrogen and hydrogen–hydrocarbon fuels causes
non-accurate NO predictions. For example, higher tempera-
ture predictions will cause higher NO predictions due to the
thermal NO mechanism. Therefore, the use of a radiation
model for an accurate combustion simulation is essential.

0360-3199/$30.00 䉷 2004 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.10.009
1114 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126
Nomenclature
Ak Arrhenius pre-exponential factor
Ea activation energy, J/kmole
p pressure, Pa
 density, kg/m3
 mixture ratio defined as air–fuel ratio
T temperature, K
Yk mass fraction of the species, k
Ri ™ ,k the reaction rate

the rate of dissipation of turbulent kinetic
energy
k rate constant, turbulent kinetic energy
f correction factor for prompt-NOx model
R universal gas constant
Diffusion flames have been widely applied in industrial
process systems, such as burners and furnaces. Both numer-
ical and experimental investigations of turbulent diffusion
(non-premixed) flames have been the subject of extensive
research during recent years for several gas fuels and liquid
fuels, because they are very important for the understanding
of the complex interactions between the turbulent flow and
chemical reactions. Good model simulations can be used in
construction of furnaces or gas turbines as well as for the
prediction of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and carbon
monoxide emissions.
Some detailed numerical studies on thermal radiation
and radiation models may be found in literature [1–9]
for hydrocarbon fuel combustions, but the numerical
studies on thermal radiation and radiation models are
very limited for hydrogen combustion, and not found for
hydrogen–hydrocarbon combustion.
The main aim of this work is to investigate the effect of
thermal radiation and radiation models on the modelling of
hydrogen and hydrogen–hydrocarbon composite fuel com-
bustion. In this paper, a detailed numerical experiment is
carried out for two radiation models; the Discrete Transfer
Radiation Model (DTRM) and the six-flux or P-1 model,
and ignoring radiation models. Experimental measurements
of radial temperature and NO distributions were previously
performed at the combustor exit for three different fuel com-
positions (100% CH4 , 70%H2 + 30% CH4 , and 100% H2 )
[10].
2. CFD Modelling of the combustor
Simulation of the combustor was performed by the use
of a CFD package Fluent [11] which was integrated with a
NOx post-processor. The boundary conditions were defined
in terms of temperature and constant for inlets and walls.
The gas law was used to calculate the fluid density. The other
b oxygen reaction order
k1 , k2 forward rate constants
k−1 , k−2 reverse rate constants
MNO molecular weight of NO
i ™ ,k the molar stoichiometric coefficient for
species i 
j ™ ,k the exponent on the concentration of reac-
tant j 
Mi ™ molecular weight of species i  , kg/kmol
k temperature exponent
Cj ™ the molar concentration of each reactant
species j 
physical constants of fluid were taken from the literature.
Inlet velocities were calculated from the known mass flow
rates (Qfuel = 4.467 × 10−4 kg/s, Qair = 0.015536 kg/s for
100% H2 , Qair = 0.01320 kg/s for 70% H2 + 30% CH4 ,
Qair = 0.007768 kg/s for 100% CH4 ) according to mixture
ratio ( = 1.0). For radiation calculations, absorption coef-
ficients used in the radiation model are taken 0.6 for pure
methane, 0.50 for composite fuel and 0.45 m−1 for pure
hydrogen combustion, while scattering coefficients used are
taken 0.01 m−1 for all cases. At the combustor walls, the
heat transfer coefficient is taken 15 W/m2 K and free stream
temperature is taken 300 K for all cases.
2.1. The model combustor
The combustor modelling has been performed for three
different fuel composition (100% H2 , 70% H2 + 30% CH4 ,
100% CH4 ) cases. The stoichiometric mixture ratio (=1.0)
was used for all cases. The standard k–
model [12] was
employed for the modelling of the turbulent flow in the
combustors. The physical domain of combustors is given
Fig. 1. The physical values used in combustor modelling
are selected as: length of combustor L = 2 m, radius of
combustor Rc = 0.3 m, radius of fuel inlet Rf = 0.005 m,
radius of air inlet Ra = 0.15 m, Qfuel = 4.467 × 10−4 kg/s,
Tfuel = 300 K, Tair = 300 K.
2.2. The combustion model
Reaction rate in turbulent flow is calculated from the Ar-
rhenius kinetic rate expression and the eddy break-up model
which are given as
The Arrhenius reaction rate expression:

 
j ™ ,k Ek
Ri ™ ,k = −i ™ ,k Mi ™ T k Ak Cj ™ exp − . (1)
RT
j™
 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126 1115

r depends on position r and direction s), local temperature,

phase function and solid angle respectively.

outlet 2.3.1. Discrete transfer radiation model (DTRM)

air The main assumption of the DTRM (the so-called the dis-
symmetry axis
fuel z crete model) is that the radiation leaving the surface element
in a certain range of solid angles can be approximated by a
Fig. 1. The sketch of the model combustor. single ray. The discrete model has some advantages; it is a
relatively simple model, the accuracy of the model can be
increased by increasing the number of rays, and it applies
The eddy break-up reaction rate (Magnussen and to a wide range of optical thickness, as well as some dis-
Hjertager model) [13] advantages; the model assumes that all surfaces are diffuse,

 m™i the effect of scattering is not included, the implementation
Ri ™ ,k = −C − , (2) assumes gray radiation, and solving a problem with a large
k ™
™i,k
i number of rays is CPU-intensive [11,14].
The equation for the change of radiant intensity, dI , along
where C is an empirical constant and C is A for reactants,
a path, ds, can be written as
and C equals to A times B for products. A and B are the
Magnussen constants (reaction mixing rates), A = 4 and dI aT 4
B=0. The eddy break-up model relates the rate of reaction to + aI = , (7)
ds 
the rate of dissipation of the reactant and product containing
eddies and is used to take the effect of turbulence on the where a, I, T and  gas absorption coefficient, inten-
reaction rate into account. The slowest (limiting) reaction sity, gas local temperature and Stefan–Boltzmann constant
rate is employed as the reaction rate for all calculations. (5.672 × 10−8 W/m2 K 4 ) respectively. If a is constant
The fluid flow and chemical reactions must be defined, along the ray, then I (s) can be estimated as
for the combustion of fuel. Oxidation of hydrocarbons can T 4
be defined by the use of the general two-step reaction mech- I (s) = (1 − exp[−as]) + I0 exp[−as], (8)

anism as [13]
  where I0 is the radiant intensity at the start of the incremen-
x+y y tal path, which is determined by the appropriate boundary
Cx Hy + O2 → xCO + H2 O, (3)
2 2 condition. The energy source in the fluid due to radiation is
then computed by summing the change in intensity along
CO + 21 O2 → CO2 . (4) the path of each ray that is traced through the fluid control
In the present work, the following global single-step re- volume.
action for hydrogen combustion is used. The radiation intensity approaching a point on a wall
surface is integrated to yield the incident radiation heat flux,
H2 + 21 O2 → H2 O. (5) qin , as

2.3. Radiation modelling qin = Iin sQn d , (9)
sQn>0
Two different radiation models; DTRM (the so-called where is the hemispherical solid angle, Iin is the intensity
discrete model) and P-1, were used for modelling of the of the incoming ray, s is the ray direction vector, n is the
radiative heat transfer in the combustor for different fuel normal pointing out of the domain. The net radiation heat
compositions. The radiative transfer equation (RTE) for an flux from the surface, qout , is then computed as a sum of
absorbing, emitting, and scattering medium at position r in the reflected portion of qin and the emissive power of the
the direction s is given as surface
dI (r, s) qout = (1 −
w )qin +
w Tw4 , (10)
+ (a + s )I(r, s)
ds
 where Tw is the surface temperature of the point P on the
T 4 s 4
= an2 + I(r, s )(sQs ) d  , (6) surface and
w is the wall emissivity. Fluent code incorpo-
 4 0
rates the radiation heat flux, Eq. (10) in the prediction of the
where r, s, s , s, a, n, s , , I, T ,  and  po- wall surface temperature. Eq. (10) also provides the surface
sition vector, direction vector, scattering direction vec- boundary condition for the radiation intensity I0 of a ray
tor, path length, absorption coefficient, refractive in- emanating from the point P, as
dex, scattering coefficient, Stefan–Boltzmann constant qout
(5.672 × 10−8 W/m2 K 4 ), total radiation intensity (which I0 = . (11)

1116 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126
2.3.2. P-1 Radiation model
The P-1 model is the simplest case of the more general
P–N model, which is based on the expansion of the radiation
intensity, I , into an orthogonal series of spherical harmon-
ics. The P-1 radiation model has also some advantages and
disadvantages. The P-1 model has some advantages over the
discrete model. With the P-1 model, it is easy to solve with
little CPU demand, the model includes the effect of scat-
tering. For combustion applications where the optical thick-
ness is large, the P-1 model works reasonably well. The P-1
model can easily be applied to complicated geometries with
curvilinear coordinates. The P-1 model has also some lim-
itations, such as, the P-1 model like the discrete model as-
sumes that all surfaces are diffuse. The implementation as-
sumes gray radiation. If the optical thickness is small, there
may be a loss of accuracy, depending on the complexity of
the geometry. The P-1 model tends to over predict radiative
fluxes from locolazied heat sources or sinks [9,11,14].
The radiation flux, qr , for this model is obtained from the
following equation.
1 O + N2 → N + NO,
qr = − ∇G, (12)
3(a + s ) − Cs
where a is the absorption coefficient mentioned above, s is
the scattering coefficient, G is the incident radiation, and C
is the linear-anisotropic phase function coefficient (ranges
from −1 to 1). Fluent code solves the following equation
to determine the local radiation intensity in the P-1 model
[9,11].
∇(
∇G) − aG + 4aT 4 = 0, (13)
where
is d[N O] 2[O](k1 k2 [O2 ][N2 ] − k−1 k−2 [NO]2 )
1 dt
= . (14)
(3(a + s ) − Cs )
The wall radiation heat flux is computed using the fol-
lowing equations in the P-1 model.
qr Qn = −
∇GQn, (15) conditions. At present, the prompt NO contribution to the
jG
qr,w = −
. (16) combustion and hydrogen–methane composite fuel combus-
jn
Thus the flux of the incident radiation, G, at a wall is −qr,w .
These models are detailed elsewhere [11,12,14,15].
2.4. NOx post-processing
In most of the combustion cases NO accounts for about
95% of the total NOx . Nitrogen oxide (NO2 ) and nitrous ox-
ide (N2 O) are less significant components, of the total NOx
formation. Therefore only NO formation is calculated in this
work. A NOx post-processor has been used to predict NO
formation from the hydrogen combustion, methane combus-
tion, and hydrogen–methane composite fuel combustion.
In methane and hydrogen–methane composite fuel com-
bustions, the formation of NO can be attributed to two chem-
ical kinetic process, which are thermal NOx and prompt
NOx , while the formation of NO in hydrogen combustions
can be attributed to only the thermal NOx . Thermal NOx is
formed by the oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen at high tem-
peratures. Prompt NOx is formed by the reactions of inter-
mediate species at the flame front. Indeed, NO is formed via
three mechanisms in combustion systems, fuel NOx , prompt
NOx and thermal NOx [14]. In hydrogen fuel combustion
there is no fuel NOx , as hydrogen does not contain nitrogen,
the prompt NO is generated generally in the rich combus-
tion region through an intermediate chemical species HCN
that is generated from CH in the decomposition process of
hydrocarbon fuels. These intermediate chemical species and
the prompt NO are not formed in combustion of hydrogen
as hydrogen contains no carbon.
The following well known Zeldovich [16] reaction deter-
mines the thermal NO;
(17)
N + O2 → O + NO, (18)
N + OH → H + NO. (19)
The mass transport equation is solved for the NO calcu-
lation, taking into account convection, diffusion, production
and consumption of NO and related chemical species. The
overall thermal NO formation rate can be calculated as [13]
= . (20)
k2 [O2 ] + k−1 [NO]
The prompt NOx formation mechanism was first reported
by Fenimore [17]. The prompt NOx formation is signifi-
cant in most hydrocarbon fuel combustion conditions espe-
cially, low temperature, short residence times and fuel-rich
total NOx formation is considerable for only pure methane
tions, due to existence of carbon in the fuel. However the
actual prompt NOx formation route is complex and involves
many intermediate reactions and species, thus are costly to
compute, the prompt NOx route is generally accepted as
CH + N2 → HCN + N, (21)
N + O2 → NO + O, (22)
HCN + OH → CN + H2 O, (23)
CN + O2 → NO + CO. (24)
 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126
The prompt NO formation rate is calculated from the De
Soete [18] global model as
d[NO]pr
dt
   
RT 2 Ea
=f ×A× [Fuel][O2 ]b [N2 ] exp . (25)
P RT
The source term due to thermal and prompt NOx mech-
anism can be calculated separately from the following ex-
pression in conjunction with Eqs. (20) and (25)
d[NO]
SNO = MNO . (26)
dt
3. Results and discussion
Predictions have been done at stoichiometric mixture ratio
( = 1.0), fuel mass flow rate was of 0.0004467 kg/s for
all cases. Inlet air and fuel temperatures were 300 K. The
convection wall boundary conditions have been chosen for
combustor walls.
The predicted radial temperature profiles at different
axial distances (0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3 m) from entrance in the
combustion chamber for pure methane, hydrogen–methane
composite fuel and pure hydrogen combustion are given
in Figs. 2, 3 and 4, respectively. In the figures, a pre-
dicted high-temperature flame zone (0.0 < z < 1.0 m and
0.0 < r < 0.1 m) was located between the centre and the
combustor wall in the first half of the combustor length.
Temperature level is decreasing considerably from the max-
imum zone through the combustor exit for both radiation
models, while the high-temperature profiles are contin-
uing for no radiation model. No significant differences
are observed between the predicted temperatures with the
two radiation models as seen in the work of Keramida
et al. [2].
For pure methane combustion, at the axial distance
of 1.3 m, the predicted average temperature level was
about 1100 K with both radiation models, while it was
about 2500 K with no radiation model. The difference
between temperature profiles with and without radiation
models are getting larger towards the combustor exit. At
the combustor exit, the average temperature levels were
about 950 K with the P-1 model, 900 K with the discrete
transfer model and 2300K with no radiation, while the
measured average temperature level was about 1050 K
(see Fig. 8a).
For hydrogen–methane composite fuel combustion, at the
axial distance of 1.3 m, the predicted average temperature
level was about 1200 K with both radiation models, while it
was about 1900 K with no radiation model. At the combustor
exit, the average temperature levels were about 1050 K with
the P-1 and the discrete transfer models and 2400 K with
no radiation, while the measured average temperature level
was about 1150 K (see Fig. 8b). For pure hydrogen com-
1117
bustion, the predicted overall temperature levels are higher
than those for other fuel combustions. At near combustor en-
trance, z = 0.4 m, the predicted maximum temperature lev-
els were about 2000 K for methane combustion, 2200 K for
70% H2 + 30% CH4 composite fuel combustion, while it
was about 2450 K for pure hydrogen combustion (see Figs.
2–4. The temperature level for pure hydrogen combustion
was higher than those for methane and composite fuel com-
bustion. This was because of higher-energy content of hy-
drogen compared with methane. The predicted radial tem-
perature profiles for three cases (no radiation, P-1 model and
the discrete model) are very close each other at near com-
bustor entrance (z =0.4 m), while significant differences are
seen between the temperature profiles with and without ra-
diation models at other axial distances (z = 0.7, 1.0, and
1.3 m). This may be because of that the combustion prod-
ucts (CO2 , H2 O, CO, etc.) are mainly produced just after the
axial distance of 0.4 m. At the combustor exit, the predicted
average temperature levels were about 1400 K with both ra-
diation models and about 2650 K with no radiation, while
the measured average temperature level was about 1350 K
(see Fig. 8c).
As an example, the predicted temperature contours of
pure hydrogen combustion for three cases (no radiation, P-
1 model, discrete model) are given in Fig. 10. While the
predicted NO contours for three cases are given in Fig. 11.
The overall heat released is the same in all the examined
cases, radiative heat transfer is responsible for reducing the
size of the high-temperature regions of the flame and for
shifting them towards the combustor entrance.
The predicted radial NO profiles at different axial dis-
tances (z = 0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3 m) from entrance for pure
methane, hydrogen–methane composite fuel and pure
hydrogen combustion are given in Figs. 5, 6 and 7, re-
spectively. The predicted NO profiles show similar trends
with the predicted temperature profiles, higher the tem-
perature and higher the NO formation. The predicted NO
emission levels with no radiation were very high for all
cases due to the very high predicted temperature levels
with no radiation. The predicted NO profiles at the com-
bustor exit with and without radiation are given in Fig.
9. At the combustor exit, the predicted maximum NO
levels without radiation were about 250 ppm for methane
combustion, 1600 ppm for 70% H2 + 30% CH4 com-
posite fuel combustion, and 2500 ppm for pure hydrogen
combustion. The NO results with radiation were about
80 ppm for methane, 532 ppm for hydrogen–methane, and
850 ppm for pure hydrogen combustions, while the mea-
surements were about 85, 500, and 700 ppm for methane,
hydrogen–methane and pure hydrogen combustions,
respectively.
Fig. 11 shows the predicted NO contours for pure hydro-
gen combustion with and without radiation. High NO lev-
els were found at high-temperature regions and low NOx
levels at low-temperature regions. The predicted maximum
NOx level with radiation was about 800 ppm, the predicted
1118 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126

no radiation
2750 p-I model
2500 discrete model
2250

Temperature [K]
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 z=1.3 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
2750
2500
2250
Temperature [K]

2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 z=1 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
2750 Radial distance [m]
2500
2250 axial wall of the
Temperature [K]

2000 combustor
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500 z=0.7 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
2750
2500
2250
Temperature [K]

2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 z=0.4 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 z
Radial distance [m]

symmetry
axis
r
fuel jet air jet

Fig. 2. Radial temperature profiles at distances 0.4, 0.7, 1, 1.3 m from entrance (100% CH4 ).

temperature level was about 2250 K in this region. This high (from 850 to 650 ppm) towards the combustor exit with the
NOx level was because of the high temperature level in the considerable decrease of temperature levels (from 2250 to
same region. The NOx levels were decreasing considerably 1400 K).
 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126 1119

2750
2500 no radiation
2250 p-I model

Temperature [K]
2000 discrete model
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 z=1.3 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
2750
2500
2250
Temperature [K]

2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 z=1 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
2750
2500
axial wall of the
2250
Temperature [K]

combustor
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 z=0.7 m
Radial distance [m]
2750
2500
2250
Temperature [K]

2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 z=0.4 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m] z

symmetry
axis

r
fuel jet air jet

Fig. 3. Radial temperature profiles at distances 0.4, 0.7, 1, 1.3 m from entrance (70% H2 + 30% CH4 ).

4. Conclusions and hydrogen–hydrocarbon composite fuel combustion in a

developed combustor.
This research work numerically analysed combustion A wide range of predicted new data from the mod-
characteristics and NO emission characteristics of hydrogen elling of hydrogen and hydrogen–methane composite fuel
1120 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126

2750
2500
2250 no radiation

Temperature [K]
2000 p-I model
discrete model
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 z=1.3 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
2750
2500
2250
Temperature [K]

2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 z=1 m
2750 Radial distance [m]
2500
2250
Temperature [K]

2000 axial wall of the

1750 combustor
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 z=0.7 m
2750 Radial distance [m]
2500
2250
Temperature [K]

2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250 z=0.4 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
z
symmetry
axis

fuel jet r
air jet

Fig. 4. Radial temperature profiles at distances 0.4, 0.7, 1, 1.3 m from entrance 100% H2 ).

combustion with no radiation, the discrete and P-1 radiation diation model is higher than those from the modelling with
models, have been obtained and presented in this paper. The discrete and P-1 radiation models. The predicted NO emis-
maximum temperature level from the modelling with no ra- sions from the modelling with no radiation are higher than
 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126 1121

1000 no radiation
p-I model
discrete model
750

NOx [ppm] 500

250

0 z=1.3 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
4000
3500
3000
NOx [ppm]

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 z=1 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
4000 Radial distance [m]
3500 axial wall of the
3000 combustor
NOx [ppm]

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 z=0.7 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
1000

750
NOx [ppm]

500

250

0 z=0.4 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m] z

symmetry
axis

r
fuel jet air jet

Fig. 5. Radial NOx profiles at distances 0.4, 0.7, 1, 1.3 m from entrance (100% CH4 ).

NO emissions from both modelling results with discrete In terms of predictive accuracy, the two radiation mod-
model and P-1 model, because of higher flame temperature els have performed similarly, both showing better agree-
predictions without no radiation. ment with the experimental data at the combustor exit
1122 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126

1000 no radiation
p-I model
discrete model
750

NOx [ppm]
500

250

0 z=1.3 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
4000

3000
NOx [ppm]

2000

1000

0 z=1 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
4000
axial wall of the
3000 combustor
NOx [ppm]

2000

1000

0 z=0.7 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
1000

750
NOx [ppm]

500

250

0 z=0.4 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m] z
symmetry
axis

fuel jet air jet r

Fig. 6. Radial NOx profiles at distance 0.4, 0.7, 1, 1.3 m from entrance (70% H2 − 30% CH4 ).

compared with no radiation cases. This indicates that ity and low computational requirements of the P-1 (the
there is no big advantage over each of radiation models so-called the six-flux) model. The CPU time consumed
in terms of predictive accuracy, except the model simplic- on a P-IV 2 GHz PC are approximately 560 min for the
 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126 1123

5000
no radiation
p-I model
4000
discrete model

NOx [ppm]
3000

2000

1000

0 z=1.3 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]
5000

4000
NOx [ppm]

3000

2000

1000

0 z=1 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m]

5000
axial wall of the
4000 combustor
NOx [ppm]

3000

2000

1000

0 z=0.7 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
1000 Radial distance [m]

750
NOx [ppm]

500

250

0 z=0.4 m
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Radial distance [m] z

symmetry
axis

fuel jet air jet r

Fig. 7. Radial NOx profiles at distances 0.4, 0.7, 1, 1.3 m from entrance (100% H2 ).

P-1 model and 720 min for the discrete transfer model overall flame temperature decreases as methane is added to
(DTRM). the fuel due to the lower-energy input and higher flame ra-
Blending hydrogen with methane causes considerable re- diation. In hydrogen fuel combustion there is no Fuel NOx ,
duction in temperature levels and thus NO emissions. The as hydrogen does not contain nitrogen, the prompt NO is
1124 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126

no radiation 300
100 % CH4 flame
2750 100 % CH4 flame p-I model
discrete model
2500 experiment 250

2250
Temperature [K]

200

NOx [ppm]
2000
no radiation
1750 p-I model
150 discrete model
1500 experiment

1250 100

1000
50
750

500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
(a) Radial distance [m] (a) Radial distance [m]
2750
70 % H2 + 30 % CH4 flame 2000
2500 70 % H2 + 30 % CH4 flame
1800
2250
Temperature [K]

2000 1600

1750 1400
NOx [ppm]
1500 1200

1250 1000
1000
800
750
600
500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 400
(b) Radial distance [m] 200
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
2750 (b) Radial distance [m]
2500 100 % H2 flame
3000
2250 100 % H2 flame
Temperature [K]

2000 2500
1750

1500
2000
NOx [ppm]

1250
1500
1000

750 1000
500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
500
(c) Radial distance [m]
0
Fig. 8. Radial temperature profiles at the combustor exit for dif- 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
ferent fuel compositions. (c) Radial distance [m]

Fig. 9. Radial NO profiles at the combustor exit for different fuel

generated generally in the rich combustion region through
an intermediate chemical species HCN that is generated
from CH in the decomposition process of hydrocarbon fu-
els. These intermediate chemical species and the prompt
NO are not formed in combustion of hydrogen as hydrogen
contains no carbon. The important NOx mechanism is the
thermal NOx mechanism in combustion of hydrogen.
The results have confirmed that the effect of thermal ra-
diation is important on flame temperature predictions. The
inclusion of radiative heat transfer in the combustion mod-
compositions.
elling has produced a better agreement between numerical
predictions and experimental data. The use of both radi-
ation models has resulted to a substantial decrease in the
main combustion zone especially towards the combustor
exit.
The effect of thermal radiation on methane combustion
was higher than the effect of thermal radiation on hydrogen
 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126 1125

no radiation 0.3
0.3 no radiation

0.25
0.25

0.2

Radius [m]
Radius [m]

0.2

0.15
0.15

0.1
0.1

0.05
0.05

0
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
(a) Axial Distance [m]
(a) Axial Distance [m]

p-I model 0.3

0.3 p-I model

0.25
0.25
0.2
Radius [m]
Radius [m]

0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1 7

0.05
0.05

14 0
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
(b) Axial Distance [m]
(b) Axial Distance [m]
discrete model 0.3
discrete model
0.3
0.25

0.25
0.2
Radius [m]

0.2
Radius[m]

0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 (c) Axial Distance [m]
(c) Axial Distance [m]
Fig. 11. NOx contours for different radiation models (100% H2 ).
Fig. 10. Mean temperature contours for different radiation models
(100% H2 ).

combustion due to CO2 emission in methane combustion in References

addition to H2 O emission.
[1] Morvan D, Porterie B, Loraud JC, Larini M. Numerical
simulation of a methane/air radiating turbulent diffusion flame.
Acknowledgements Int J Numer Methods Heat Fluid Flow 2000;10(2):196–227.
[2] Keramida EP, Liakos HH, Founti MA, Boudouvis AG,
The financial support from Erciyes University, Turkey un- Markatos NC. Radiative heat transfer in a natural gas-fired
der Contract number FBA.03.50 is gratefully acknowledged. furnaces. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2000;43:1801–9.
1126 M. Ilbas / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1113 – 1126
[3] Meunier PH, Costa M, Carvalho MG. On NOx emissions
from turbulent propane diffusion flames. Combust Flame
1998;112:221–30.
[4] Song G, Bjorge T, Holen J, Magnussen BF. Simulation of
fluid flow and gaseous radiation heat transfer in a natural
gas-fired furnace. Int J Numer Methods Heat Fluid Flow
1997;7(2/3):169–80.
[5] Al-Omari SB, Kawajiri K, Yonesawa T. Soot processes in
a methane-fueled furnace and their impact on radiation
heat transfer to furnace walls. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2001;44:2567–81.
[6] Dembele S, Wen JX. Investigation of a spectral formulation for
radiative heat transfer in one-dimensional fires and combustion
systems. Int J Heat Mass 2000;43:4019–30.
[7] Guo H, Ju Y, Maruta K, Niioka T. Radiation extinction limit
of counterflow premixed lean methane–air flames. Combust
Flame 1997;109:639–46.
[8] Chan SH. The role of radiative transfer in combustion.
Proceedings of the second international symposium on
Radiation Transfer (Radiation Transfer-II), Kuşadasi, Turkey,
1997. p. 463–74.
[9] Gosman AD, Lockwood FC. Incorporation of a flux model
for radiation into a finite difference procedure for furnace
calculations. 14th Symposium (International) on Combustion.
The Combustion Institute Pittsburg; 1973. p. 661.
[10] Ilbas M, Yilmaz I, Kaplan Y. Investigations of hydrogen and
hydrocarbon composite fuel combustion and NOx emission
characteristics in a model combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy
(accepted for publication 2004), in press.
[11] Fluent Incorporated, Fluent 6.1.22, User’s Guide, 2003.
[12] Launder BE, Spalding DB. Lectures in mathematical models
of turbulence. London, England: Academic Press; 1972.
[13] Magnussen BF, Hjertager BH, On mathematical modelling
of turbulent combustion with special emphasis on soot
formation and combustion. 16th symposium (International) on
combustion. PA, USA: The Combustion Institute Pittsburg;
1976. p. 719.
[14] Ilbas M. Studies of ultra low NOx burner, PhD thesis,
University of Wales, Cardiff, UK; 1997.
[15] Siegel R, Howell JR. Thermal radiation heat transfer.
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1992.
[16] Zeldovich YAB. Oxidation of nitrogen in combustion.
Academy of Science, USSR Institute of Chemical Physics,
1947.
[17] Fenimore CP. 13th symposium (international) on combustion.
Pittsburg: The Combustion Institute; 1971.
[18] De Soete GG. Overall reaction rates of NO and N2
formation from fuel nitrogen. 15th symposium (international)
on combustion. PA, USA: The Combustion Institute Pittsburg;
1974. p. 1093.