International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5S (2011) S111–S119

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Application of lean flammability limit study and large eddy simulation to burner
development for an oxy-fuel combustion system
Masayuki Taniguchi a,∗ , Kenji Yamamoto a , Teruyuki Okazaki a , Sebastian Rehfeldt b , Christian Kuhr b
a
Plant Analysis Unit, Hitachi Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd., 7-1-1 Omika-cho, Hitachi-shi, Ibaraki-ken, 319-1292, Japan
b
Hitachi Power Europe GmbH, Schifferstraˇe 80, 47059 Duisburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Previously, we developed a model to predict lean flammability limit L and flame propagation velocity
Received 21 January 2011 Sb for pulverized coal. In the present paper, we have extended the model to apply it in development of
Received in revised form 11 April 2011 oxy-fuel combustion systems. The basic model consists of two particles. One of the two particles burns
Accepted 3 May 2011
first, then, the other particle is ignited by the heat of combustion of the one burning particle. We analyzed
Available online 2 June 2011
at what distance the first burning particle could ignite the next particle, and how fast the first burning
particle could ignite the next particle. The model was verified both for air and oxy-fuel combustion
Keywords:
conditions. Next, a method to support burner development was examined by using the model. Local Sb
Pulverized coal
Oxy-fuel combustion
and L near the ignition points of the burner could be analyzed from the concentration and temperature
Large eddy simulation profiles of CFD results. Flame stability was judged by the calculated Sb and L profiles, and past results
Flame propagation velocity of blow-off limits obtained with actual- and pilot-scale experiments. A DS® T-burner was developed by
Lean flammability limit Hitachi Power Europe, and installed at the Schwarze Pumpe pilot plant. Combination of the technique
and large eddy simulation was applied to confirmation of the system.
Crown Copyright © 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Recently, development of oxy-fuel combustion technology
has been particularly active using pilot-scale plants (Strömberg
et al., 2009; Tigges et al., 2009). Fuel ignition properties are fun-
damental combustion performance parameters for engineering
design of combustion systems. Improving ignition performance
leads to improved combustion performances including such items
as, expanding the turn-down ratio, expanding the application
fuel properties, maintaining safety of the fuel supplying system,
improving the combustion efficiency, and reducing environmental
pollutants such as NOx . Usually, for oxy-fuel combustion systems,
a mixture of exhaust flue gas and oxygen is the combustion sup-
porting gas (Tigges et al., 2009). Oxygen concentrations are usually
variable for oxy-fuel combustion systems; therefore, ignition per-
formances can be varied significantly.
Flame propagation velocity is one of the most important igni-
tion performance parameters, and Suda et al. (2007) have studied
flame propagation velocities under air and oxy-fuel combustion
conditions. Lean flammability limit is also a very important igni-
∗ Corresponding author at: Plant Analysis Unit, Department of Coal Science
Research, Hitachi Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd, 832-2 Horiguchi, Hitachinaka-
shi, Ibaraki-ken, 312-0034, Japan. Tel.: +81 29 276 5633; fax: +81 29 276 5783.
E-mail address: masayuki.taniguchi.xc@hitachi.com (M. Taniguchi).
tion performance parameter. However, there are still only a few
studies about these topics.
In previous studies, we developed a model to predict lean
flammability limit (lean blow-off limit, lean explosion limit)
and flame propagation velocity for air and oxy-fuel combustion
(Taniguchi et al., 2009, 2011). The model was developed based
on laser ignition experiments (Taniguchi et al., 1996, 2009). In the
present study, we verified the model under various coal properties,
diameter, oxygen concentration, surrounding gas temperature and
composition for air and oxy-fuel combustion conditions. Calcula-
tions of the lean flammability limit for oxy-fuel combustion were
also verified by comparison to experimental results of lean explo-
sion limit (Kupila et al., 2011). Ignition performances of solid fuels
differ with fuel properties significantly. A fuel database for igni-
tion was expanded to include 35 coals (lignite, sub-bituminous,
and bituminous coals, and anthracites) and one biomass fuel.
Also in the present paper, we extended the model to develop
an engineering design for actual and pilot-scale burner systems for
oxy-fuel combustion. Pulverized coal is supplied with carrier gas
to the furnace for actual boiler systems. For oxy-fuel combustion,
exhaust gas is usually used as carrier gas. Flame stability becomes
worse because oxygen concentration in carrier gas becomes low
and specific heat of the carrier gas rises. In order to obtain a sta-
ble flame, local coal concentration of the burner neighborhood
should be larger than the lean flammability limit L. The flame sta-
bility becomes good when local flame propagation velocity Sb of

1750-5836/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.05.008
S112 M. Taniguchi et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5S (2011) S111–S119

Nomenclature

Av frequency factor of pyrolysis (1/s)

Dp coal particle diameter (m)
Eav average activation energies (kJ/mol)
Ev activation energies of the pyrolysis (kJ/mol)
E i standard deviation of activation energy (kJ/mol)
L lean flammability limit (kg/m3 N)
Qwall Radiant heat flux from surroundings (W/m2 )
R gas constant = 8.314 (J/mol K)
Sb Flame propagation velocity (m/s)
Sb-max maximum flame propagation velocity (m/s)
Tp particle temperature (K)
V amount of volatile matter in the moment in the
pyrolysis (kg)
V∞ Initial amount of volatile matter (kg)
ai constant
b constant
d distance between coal particles (m)
minimum-Sb Calculated flame propagation velocity judged
as flammable for pilot- and actual-scale burner sys-
tems (m/s)
n number of distribution functions of activation ener-
gies
s flame propagation time (s)
t time (s)
Subscripts
i ith component of volatile matter
the burner neighborhood become large. We developed a technique
to analyze local Sb and L near the ignition points of the burner
systems from the concentration and temperature profiles of the
general computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results (k–ε method).
Increasing numbers of studies on large eddy simulation (LES)
for gas and spray combustion have been reported (Boileau et al.,
2008; Patel and Menon, 2008; Pitsch, 2006). Recently, we did a
LES for pulverized coal combustion (Yamamoto et al., 2011). Then
also in this paper, we applied the LES calculation to the burner
development. LES can evaluate combustion performances precisely
including flame stability, but the calculation load is large. We used
both LES and the lean flammability limit study for burner develop-
ment in order to clarify quickly the design points for improvement.
2. Experimental equipment and the basic model
2.1. Ignition and flame propagation phenomena for pulverized
coal combustion
Fig. 1 shows a model for flame stabilization of pulverized coal
burners (Taniguchi and Yamamoto, 2010). Generally, pulverized
coal and carrier gas (primary air) are supplied from the center of
the burner. The secondary air is supplied around the primary air.
A recirculation region of high temperature burning gas is formed
between the flows of the primary air and secondary air by the effect
of the flame stabilizer. The burning gas of the recirculation region
heats the pulverized coal particles in the primary air and these par-
ticles ignite and burn. When the coal concentration is high, the
burning coal particles heat and ignite other nearby coal particles.
The flame moves from the coal particles directly heated by the gas
of the recirculation region to the surrounding coal particles. This
phenomenon is considered flame propagation. The mixture of coal
and oxidizer (such as air) should be in the flammable condition to
stabilize the flame.
Fig. 1. Ignition and flame propagation phenomena of pulverized coal combustion.
2.2. Laser ignition experiments
Fig. 2(a) shows a schematic of the experimental equipment
(Taniguchi et al., 1996, 2009). Uniformly sized pulverized coal par-
ticles were suspended in a laminar upward flow and rapidly heated
by a single-pulsed YAG laser. Velocity of the upward flow was con-
trolled according to the particle diameter. The heated pulverized
coal particles were burned in the quartz test section (50 mm2 cross
section area). The particle concentration was measured from the
intensity of particle scattering by a He–Ne sheet laser. Another
continuous laser was used to determine the effect of radiant heat
loss on the ignition characteristics. Its beam diameter was usually
15 mm around the ignition point.
Photos of the burning particles are shown in Fig. 2(b). Two kinds
of phenomena were observed. The mixture of Fig. 2(b-1) was under
the non-flammable condition. Immediately after the pulse laser
shot, light emission was observed from a small number of parti-
cles. These were burning particles that were directly ignited by
the laser shot. The mixture of Fig. 2(b-2) was in the flammable
condition. A small number of particles ignited at first the same
as in Fig. 2(b-1). However, the number of burning particles then
increased, as revealed by the area of laser light emission. That is,
the flame moved from the particles directly heated by the laser to
the surrounding particles. This phenomenon was considered flame
propagation. Flame propagation velocity was defined as the growth
rate of the flame radius (Taniguchi et al., 1996).
Fig. 2(c) summarizes the basic phenomena of flame propaga-
tion. One side of two particles burns first, then, the other particle is
ignited by the heat of combustion of the one burning particle. When
the first particle ignites, volatile matter is pyrolized. A volatile mat-
ter flame is formed around the first particle. The flame grows due to
volatilization, and the flame heats the next particle which has not
ignited yet. Flame propagation is observed if the first burning par-
ticle can transfer the flame to the next particle before the volatile
matter combustion of the first particle has finished. We defined the
distance between particles as d and the time of flame propagation
as s. Flame propagation velocity Sb was defined as the value of d
divided by s. In this study, we analyzed data to obtain the relation-
ships between d and s under various experimental conditions.
 M. Taniguchi et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5S (2011) S111–S119 S113

Fig. 2. Laser ignition experiments.

Present model is based on assumption of homogeneous igni-
tion. The coal concentration intended for in the model is high. The
concentration is almost as same as that for actual systems. Hetero-
geneous ignition was also observed when the coal concentration
was thin (Chen et al., 1994), by using the equipment. In this con-
dition (Chen et al., 1994), only particles heated by the pulsed laser
directly burnt.
2.3. Measurement of lift-off height for continuous flame
in the wall. We observed coal flames through the windows. The
nozzle which supplied coal was remodeled so that temperature of
the primary air was able to be varied. Cooling air was supplied in
the circumference side of the nozzle. Temperature of the primary
air was controlled by varying the temperature of the cooling air.
Pulverized coal was supplied with primary air, and injected into
the high temperature surrounding gas flow. This flow was formed
by propane combustion. The temperature was 1420 K and the oxy-
gen concentration was 10 vol%. The SR was varied from 0.06 to 0.18
and temperature of the primary air was varied from 365 K to 443 K.

Lift–off height was studied to evaluate flame stability of contin-

uous flames (Yamamoto et al., 2011). The experimental equipment
is shown in Fig. 3. The experimental equipment and details on
selection of the experimental conditions we used have been shown
elsewhere (Taniguchi et al., 2001; Yamamoto et al., 2011). There
were two different points in comparison with the previous inves-
tigations. The circumference of the combustion area was covered
with fire brick wall. The temperature of the inside surface of the fire
brick wall was around 1100 K. Plural small windows were installed
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Lean flammability limit and flame propagation velocity
Example relationships between coal concentration and flame
propagation velocity are shown in Fig. 4. Coal concentrations and
flame propagation velocities are shown as normalized values. The
coal concentration was in inverse proportion to the third power

Fig. 3. Schematic drawing of an ignition experiment for lift-off height measurement of continuous flame.
S114 M. Taniguchi et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5S (2011) S111–S119

Maximum flame propagation velocity; Sb-max

ature
1000

of fuell (K)
Tempera
500
flame prropagation

1.0
velocitty: Sb (-)
malized

(kg/kg, dry as free basiss)

100 Assumption
Norm

05
0.5

of pyrolized
matter; VM
unt of fuel
1/L amount of pyrolized VM wood
Lean flammability limit; L
0 50

volatile m
Sub-bituminous
Sub bituminous

amount o

/ amou
0 2 4
Normalized particle concentration (-) hv-bituminous
anthracite
Fig. 4. Relationship between coal concentration and flame propagation velocity. 0
0 0 01
0.01 0 02
0.02 0 03
0.03 0 04
0.04 0 05
0.05
of the distance d. When the coal concentration increased, flame Time (s)
propagation velocity increased. But there was an upper limit value
Fig. 6. Examples of pyrolysis calculation results for evaluating lean flammability
(Sb-max) to the flame propagation velocity. Lean flammability limit
limit.
was obtained previously, and the flame propagation velocities were
almost zero at the lean flammability limit (Taniguchi et al., 1996,
propagation velocities were large for high volatile content coals.
2009). Absolute values of L and Sb-max were found to vary with
The flame propagation time s became short. Lean flammability lim-
coal properties and burning conditions.
its were low for high volatile content coals.
Data on bituminous coals and anthracites of the same par-
Lean flammability limit L was evaluated by three methods. For
ticle diameter were obtained under various burning conditions
sets (i), L was measured by flame propagation probability exper-
(Taniguchi et al., 2011), and the effect of particle diameter was
iments (Taniguchi et al., 1996, 2009, 2011). This is a method to
examined (Taniguchi et al., 1996, 2009). Relationships between L,
measure by a definition. For sets (ii), L was estimated by Sb-max and
Sb-max and particle diameter Dp could be expressed by Eqs. (1)–(3)
the relationship between L and Sb-max described in Eq. (1). For sets
(Taniguchi et al., 2009, 2011).
(iii), L was estimated based on a pyrolysis calculation. The relation-
1 ship between Sb-max and ignition delay time has been determined
Sb- max ∝ (1)
L and the ignition delay time was evaluated based on the amount
L of volatile matter obtained by the pyrolysis calculation (Taniguchi
∝ Dp2 (2) et al., 2009).
Sb- max
The lean flammability limits provided by the three different
L ∝ Dp1.5 (3)
methods were in good agreement. When volatile content increased,
L decreased. But, L varied slightly for the kind of fuel even if the
3.2. Effects of experimental conditions on flame propagation
volatile contents were the same, mainly because pyrolysis rate con-
performances
stants varied slightly, even if the volatile contents were the same.
Example pyrolysis calculations were done using the calculation
Fig. 5 shows the lean flammability limit L at the same diameter
method of Taniguchi et al. (2009), and results are shown in Fig. 6.
with different volatile contents of coals. For high volatile con-
The relationship between heating time and amount of pyrolized
tent coals, the growth rate of the volatile flame was usually large,
volatile matter was calculated when the particle was heated at a
because the pyrolysis rate was usually large. The flame could be
rate of 20000 K/s. The distributed activation energy model (DAEM)
transmitted in a short time from one burning particle to another,
was used for the pyrolysis (Niksa and Lau, 1993; Taniguchi et al.,
even though the distance between the particles was large. Flame
2001, 2009). The pyrolysis rate dV/dt was calculated by Eq. (4).
⎡ ⎤
∞ t
10 dV
Av e−Ev/RTp exp ⎣− Av e−Ev/RTp(t ) dt ⎦ f (E v) dE v

= V∞ (4)
ash free bassis)

Flammable dt
ability Limit

(i) experimental (iii) estimated 0 0

based on The initial mass of volatile matter V∞ was evaluated by

pyrolysis Flashchain (Niksa, 1995). The function f(Ev) shows the distribution
1
calculation of the activation energies and the frequency factor (Av). As shown in
ean Flamma
(arb. unit, dry a

Eqs. (5) and (6), f(Ev) was expressed as a summation with more than
(ii) estimated one normal distribution function. The function f(Ev) gave results
from measured that approximately agreed with the experimental results for each
0.1 Sb-max coal type.
 
Le

n
a (E − Eavi )
wood f (E v) = √ i exp − (5)
non-Flammable 2Ei 2Ei2
i=1

0.01 
n

0 20 40 60 80 100 ai = 1 (6)
i=1
Volatile matter content
(wt%, dry ash free basis) The pyrolysis rate constant, used in Eq. (5), has been measured
by thermogravimetric analyses (Taniguchi et al., 2001). In general,
Fig. 5. Effects of coal properties on lean flammability limit. pyrolysis started at low temperature and the amount of volatile
 M. Taniguchi et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5S (2011) S111–S119
4 1.2
conccentration ((arb. unit) Air comb. (hv-bituminous)
osive dust
Flammable
Oxyfuel comb.
(hv-bituminous)
Miniimum explo
2 Oxyfuel
comb.
(lignite)
non-Flammable
Fl bl
0 1.0
0 10 20 30
Oxygen
g Concentration (vol%)
Fig. 7. Lean explosion limit of pulverized coal at air and oxy-fuel combustion. Sym-
bols are experimental results from the literature (Kupila et al., 2011), and lines are
calculated results.
matter increased when volatile content of fuel increased, as shown
in Fig. 6. We assumed that L was in inverse proportion to the amount
of pyrolized volatile matter.
The flame propagation velocities in the N2 /O2 and CO2 /O2 atmo-
spheres have been experimentally obtained by Suda et al. (2007).
The flame propagation velocities strongly depended on composi-
tion of surrounding gas, and they increased significantly with O2
concentration. Previously, we developed a model to predict both
flame propagation velocity and lean flammability limit (Taniguchi
et al., 2011). The model can analyze effects of coal properties,
coal particle diameter, coal concentration, oxygen concentration,
radiant heat loss from flame to surroundings, and composition of
combustion supporting gas. The calculated results agreed with the
experiment results (Suda et al., 2007; Taniguchi et al., 2009).
Ignition performances for oxy-fuel combustion are inferior to
those for air combustion when oxygen concentrations are the same.
The main reason is that heat capacity of CO2 is large. Temperature
of the coal flame is hard to rise when CO2 concentration in the
surrounding gas increases (Suda et al., 2007). The difference of the
flame temperature formed around the coal particles could be evalu-
ated by calculating adiabatic flame temperatures of volatile matter
at stoichiometry condition (Taniguchi et al., 2011).
Recently, experimental results of lean explosion limit at air
and oxy-fuel combustion were reported (Kupila et al., 2011). The
proposed flame propagation velocity and lean flammability limit
model was also verified using these results, and this is shown in
Fig. 7. The model reproduced the difference in the lean explosion
limit in air and oxy-fuel combustion and it reproduced the effects
of oxygen concentration.
For engineering design of actual boilers, it is important to con-
sider the effect of heat loss from the flame to the furnace wall. Lean
flammability limit and flame propagation velocity vary with the
difference of the heat loss rate by the furnace conditions, such as
whether the furnace is covered with a water wall or a caster. Laser
ignition experiments of Taniguchi and Yamamoto (2010) have been
used to obtain the basic expression of the radiant heat loss,
1
1
= bQwall +
L L0
where L is lean flammability limit, b is a constant, Qwall is radiant
heat flux from a wall or from the continuous laser, and L0 is the stan-
dard lean flammability limit for the standard heat flux condition
(usually, wall temperature = room temperature). Example effects of
radiant heat flux from a wall on lean flammability limit are shown in
Fig. 8; the experimental data were from Taniguchi and Yamamoto
(2010).
S115
ability limiit
non-Flammable
nt)
(arb. un
an flamma
1.1
Flammable
1/Lea
40 0 2x104 4x104
Radiant heat flux from the continuous laser
(W/m2)
Fig. 8. Effects of radiant heat flux from the surroundings on lean flammability limit.
The flame propagation velocity and lean flammability limit
model was verified by experiments in pilot- and actual-scale fur-
naces (Taniguchi et al., 2009, 2011). They obtained the lean blow
off limit by varying the area ratio of the caster and water wall that
covered the furnace wall. From their results, we assumed that the
flame became unstable when Sb was lower than a constant value
that was decided for each burner structure. The constant value was
defined as minimum-Sb to form a stable flame by the burners and
it was around 0.05 m/s for the present experimental conditions.
A more detailed explanation has been given elsewhere (Taniguchi
and Yamamoto, 2010; Taniguchi et al., 2011).
Lift-off height is usually used for an index of flame stability.
Yamamoto et al. (2011) have examined the lift-off height for coal
combustion by LES. The effect of lift-off height on coal concen-
tration was examined experimentally by Taniguchi et al. (2001).
The LES results and experimental results agreed well with each
other; however, the calculation load for the LES is large. The flame
propagation velocity and lean flammability limit model could suc-
cessfully evaluate the relationship between coal concentration and
flame propagation velocity (Taniguchi et al., 2011). It was shown
that if flame propagation velocity was large, coal could ignite easily.
We examined whether the flame propagation velocity and lean
flammability limit model could evaluate lift-off height qualita-
tively. Results are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Fig. 9 shows diameter
distribution used for the present study. Coarse (mass fraction under
74 ␮m was 50 wt%) and fine (mass fraction under 74 ␮m was
92 wt%) lv-bituminous coal was used. Fig. 10 shows experimental
and calculated results. Lift-off heights of lv-bituminous coal were
examined under various coal concentrations (primary stoichiomet-
ric ratio, SR), coal diameter distribution and temperature of primary
air. Pulverized coal was supplied with primary air, and injected into
(7)
Fig. 9. Diameter distribution of lv-bituminous coal used for lift-off height measure-
ment.
S116 M. Taniguchi et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5S (2011) S111–S119
Fig. 10. Relationship between calculated flame propagation velocity at the noz-
zle exit and measured lift-off height for lv-bitumious coal. Radiant heat flux from
surroundings used for the calculations was 300 MW/m2 .
the high temperature surrounding gas flow. This flow was formed
by propane combustion. The temperature was 1420 K and the oxy-
gen concentration was 10 vol%. The SR was varied from 0.06 to 0.18
and temperature of the primary air was varied from 365 K to 443 K.
Effects of SR on lift-off height are shown in Fig. 10(a). Lift-
off height became short when SR decreased. Coal ignited easily
when coal concentration increased. However, lift-off height was
also influenced by temperature of the primary air and coal diam-
eter. Flame propagation velocities were calculated under each
experimental condition. The relationship between calculated flame
propagation velocity and measured lift-off height is shown in
Fig. 10(b). The velocities at the nozzle exit were examined. Radi-
ant heat flux from the surroundings was evaluated by temperature
of surrounding wall. It was around 300 MW/m2 . Measured lift-
off heights were almost the same if calculated flame propagation
velocities were the same. The lift-off height was less when the flame
propagation velocity increased.
The proposed flame propagation velocity and lean flammabil-
ity limit model judge only ignition performances, but, results can
be obtained immediately. Improving ignition performance values
is the first priority in development of combustion systems. By
combining the model and LES, we can quickly clarify points for
improvement of the combustion systems.
3.3. Application of the flame propagation velocity and lean
flammability limit model: a flammability analysis technique
We applied the flame propagation velocity and lean flamma-
bility limit model to develop the engineering design of actual and
pilot-scale burner systems. We call this the flammability analysis
technique. This technique is a post-processing analysis of CFD cal-
culations, and a general CFD method, such as the k–ε method can be
used. Calculated results of coal concentration, gas composition and
temperature profiles were input at first. Next, experimental con-
ditions, such as coal properties, particle diameter distribution and
furnace wall temperature, were input. Flame propagation velocity
profiles were calculated using the input information. Flame sta-
bility was judged by the calculated flame propagation velocities
and past results of actual- and pilot-scale experimental results. If
the flame propagation velocity Sb was larger than the minimum-
Sb, the condition of the mixture of coal and oxidizer was judged
as flammable. Flame propagation velocity near the recirculation
region was very important for considering the flame stability.
Typical application examples are shown in Fig. 11: which
includes (a) experimentally obtained flame photos; (b) calculated
temperature profiles obtained by the LES method; (c) calculated
temperature profiles obtained by the k–ε method; and (d) flamma-
bility analysis results. Calculations by the k–ε and LES methods
were described in the literature (Yamamoto et al., 2005, 2011).
CASE I is the results of air combustion. The flame photo showed
that flame stability was good. The results by the LES method also
showed that a stable flame could be obtained (Fig. 11(b)). LES was
a good analytical technique to evaluate the stability of pulverized
coal flames (Yamamoto et al., 2011); however, the calculation load
was large. CASE II was an example of oxy-fuel combustion. Accord-
ing to the analysis results by the LES method, stability of the flame
was inferior to that of CASE I. The difference between CASES I and II
was clear. Calculated results of the k–ε method were also compared
(Fig. 11(c)), but the difference between CASES I and II was not clear.
The calculation load of k–ε was small; however, it was hard to eval-
uate the flame stability. Finally, the results of flammability analysis
are shown in Fig. 11(d). A clear difference was obtained for the cal-
culated flame propagation velocities of CASES I and II and the CASE
II results showed the flame stability was inferior to that of CASE I.
This conclusion accorded with that of the LES method. Although the
flammability analysis also used the k–ε method, the model allowed
evaluation of the flame stability which was not possible with just
the k-␧ method.
CASE III is another example of oxy-fuel combustion. This was a
DS® T-burner designed by Hitachi Power Europe, installed at the
Schwarze Pumpe pilot plant. A detailed structure of the burner
and experimental results obtained using it has been described else-
where (Rehfeldt et al., 2011). Clear difference was observed in flame
propagation velocity of CASES II and III. Good flame stability of CASE
III was also confirmed by the flammability analysis.
3.4. More case studies
Fig. 12 shows examples of CASE studies that applied the tech-
nique to a burner design for lignite-fired oxy-fuel combustion.
Fig. 12(a) shows examples of the burner design. Pulverized coal was
supplied with combustion flue gas. Usually, oxygen concentration
of the flue gas was less than 10 vol%. Oxygen for combustion was
mixed with the flue gas, and supplied by two systems. Some gas was
supplied from the central part of the burner. The remaining gas (sec-
ondary gas) was supplied from the circumference side of the coal
flow. In many cases, the secondary gas was injected as swirl flow.
A flame stabilizer was installed between the coal flow and the sec-
ondary gas flow. Recirculation regions were formed downstream
from the flame stabilizer. Stoichiometric ratios of burner zone were
around 0.95. Particle diameter was almost as same as that used for
actual systems. Mass fraction under 74 ␮m was around 70 wt%.
Coal concentration, gas composition and temperature profiles
were obtained by the CFD calculation (k–ε method). Flame propa-
gation velocity profile was obtained from this information in the
burner neighborhood. The position and size of the recirculation
region were judged from calculated flow velocity profiles. Flame
stability became good when flame propagation velocity near the
recirculation region increased.
The flame propagation velocity profile obtained with the design
according CASE II is shown in Fig. 12(b). Flame propagation veloc-
 M. Taniguchi et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5S (2011) S111–S119 S117

Fig. 11. Typical results obtained by using the flammability analysis.

ity was lower than the minimum-Sb value in most of the area. It
was hard to obtain a stable flame. Coal and oxygen concentration
profiles are also shown in Fig. 12(b). Oxygen concentration was low
where coal concentration was high and vice versa. In this system,
coal was supplied by combustion flue gas. It was easy to lower the
oxygen concentration where many coal particles were flowing. As
shown in Fig. 7, lignite is hard to ignite when oxygen concentra-
tion is lower than 10 vol%. Coal concentration should be increased
where oxygen concentration was higher than 10 vol%.
Fig. 12(c) shows flame propagation velocity and coal concen-
tration profiles obtained for CASE III. For CASE III, a part of the
coal particle flowed through the circumference side where oxy-
gen concentration was high (>10 vol%), by influence of strong swirl
flow. The burner structure of CASE III was designed that coal
particles could flow to the recirculation region (higher oxygen
concentration). The recirculation region of CASE III was enlarged
by optimization of secondary flow. Flame propagation velocity
became considerably larger than the minimum-Sb value because
the coal concentration increased where the oxygen concentration
was large. By using the flammability analysis, we could quickly
confirm points for improvement of the burners.
We developed a software program, called nextFlame and based
on the program OpenFOAM, to confirm the burner structure
and appropriate operating conditions using numerical analyses

(a) Burner structure (b) CASE II (c) CASE III

Recirculation Recirculation region enlarged
r=0 region 1
Coal:
Oxygen
%)

al

li it
lignite
Sb (m/s) Normalized Coal (vol%

Norrmalized Coa

20 FSR
oncentration

r
Gas FSR Coal flow
Coal Flow Coal Flow Flow 0.5 moved
(CASE 0
(CASE II) outside
concentrattion

III) 1
co

G
Gas
Flow 0
Flame
by controlling
stabilizer 0 0.4 local oxygen
(FSR)
Sb (m//s)

distribution
0.4
0.2 minimum-Sb
0.2 minimum-Sb
Ignition
point 0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
Exhaust
E h t
gas + O2 Normalized r (-) Normalized r (-)

Exhaust gas Exhaust gas + O2 Exhaust gas Exhaust gas + O2

Exhaust gas + coal + O2 + O
Exhaust gas + coal 2 Exhaust gas + coal

Fig. 12. Examples of CASE studies.

S118 M. Taniguchi et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5S (2011) S111–S119
Fig. 13. Comparisons of CASE studies calculated by LES and the flammability analysis technique.
(Rehfeldt et al., 2011) and results of Figs. 11 and 12. Coal combustion
models were newly developed for analyzing ignition performance
values (Yamamoto et al., 2011). The CFD software FLUENT was used
to develop the burner systems at first. These were shown elsewhere
(Rehfeldt et al., 2011). Then, LES was used for confirming ignition
phenomenon near the burner neighborhood.
Finally, we compared results provided by the flammability anal-
ysis technique with LES calculation results. The comparison is
shown in Fig. 13 of CASEs II and III from Fig. 11. The contour lines
in Fig. 12(b) and (c) are instantaneous gas temperature profiles
obtained by LES in the section including the centerline. For CASE III,
the temperature began to rise near the burner. An extensive high
temperature region was formed at the outer region of the burner.
For CASE III, the position where coal ignited was nearer the burner
than for CASE II. The flame of CASE III spread outward more than
the flame of CASE II did.
Flame propagation velocity profiles are shown in Fig. 13(a) at
two different positions where the distance from the burner exits
are different. Height B is the position near the burner. The flame
propagation velocity of CASE III was larger than that of CASE II.
The flame propagation velocity of CASE III was high in the outer
region of the burner. These results showed that coal ignited near
the burner and the flame spread outward for CASE III. Height A is
the position downstream. In this position, the flame propagation
velocity for CASE II also became large. Oxygen concentration in the
coal flow increased by mixing of coal flow with oxygen included
in surrounding gas (supplied from the central part of the burner,
or, as secondary gas). The flame propagation velocity was high
inside the burner. These results showed that coal could be ignited
even for CASE II at a downstream position, but, the flame did not
spread outward. The conclusions obtained from flammability anal-
ysis accorded with conclusions obtained from LES qualitatively.
Yamamoto et al. (2011) examined effect of coal concentration
on lift-off height. The lift-off height was calculated by using both
LES and standard k–ε method. The results by LES method agreed
with experimental ones. However, the results by standard k-␧
method overestimated, because, pyrolysis and ignition reactions
were evaluated by using time-averaged temperature. Temperature
fluctuation is large in the neighborhood of the ignition position,
for example, maximum instantaneous flame temperature reaches
1500–2000 K even if mean temperature is around 1000 K. Heat from
the high temperature gas and particle cloud in the flame spreads
upstream. Pyrolysis and ignition reactions in the unburned mix-
ture are accelerated by the flame (Taniguchi et al., 2001). For LES,
the acceleration effect was predicted precisely by considering the
temperature fluctuation of the flame. The acceleration effect was
hard to be evaluated by using time-averaged temperature. For oxy-
fuel combustion, the temperature fluctuation became large because
unburned mixture of oxy-fuel combustion had oxygen concentra-
tion distribution.
The temperature fluctuation is particularly large for flames in
the ignition area. In contrast, the fluctuation is not so large in
the unburned mixture. The flammability analysis evaluates flame
propagation velocity by using temperature, gas composition and
coal concentration of unburned mixture but flame temperature
is not used for evaluation. The acceleration effect caused by the
flame was included in the measured flame propagation velocity.
The evaluation result was hard to be affected, because the temper-
ature fluctuation was small for the unburned mixture. Therefore,
prediction of flame stability was comparatively well, even though
k-␧method was used for the evaluation.
4. Conclusion
We developed a model to predict lean flammability limit L and
flame propagation velocity Sb for oxy-fuel combustion conditions
based on fundamental experimental data. The proposed model
was verified with data of both fundamental and pilot- and actual-
scale experiments. The model could predict both flame propagation
velocities and lean flammability limits for air and oxy-fuel combus-
tion systems.
We also examined a method to support burner development by
using the model. Local Sb and L near the ignition points of the burn-
ers could be obtained from concentration and temperature profiles
 M. Taniguchi et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5S (2011) S111–S119
of the general CFD results (k–ε method). Flame stability was judged
by the calculated Sb and L profiles, and past results of blow off limits
obtained from actual- and pilot-scale experiments. We proposed
this as the flammability analysis technique. A DS® T-burner was
developed by Hitachi Power Europe, and installed at the Schwarze
Pumpe pilot plant. The technique was applied to confirmation of
the system.
LES can evaluate combustion performance values precisely
including flame stability, but calculation load is large. The flamma-
bility analysis judges only flame stability but results can be obtained
immediately. The k–ε method is also useful to grasp the overall
combustion performance values of the burners in a short time. By
their judicious combination, we could quickly confirm points for
improvement of the burners.
References
Boileau, M., Staffelbach, G., Cuenot, B., Poinsot, T., Berat, C., 2008. LES of an ignition
sequence in a gas turbine engine. Combust. Flame 154, 2–22.
Chen, J.C., Taniguchi, M., Narato, K., Ito, K., 1994. Laser ignition of pulverized coals.
Combust. Flame 97, 107–117.
Kupila, K., Dernjatin, P., Sormunen, R., Sumida, T., Kiyama, K., Briglia, A., Sanchez-
Molinero, I., Darde, A., 2011. Risk analysis of FORTUM’s 560 MW e net power
plant retrofit to oxy-fuel combustion. Energy Procedia 4, 1820–1827.
Niksa, S., 1995. Predicting the devolatilization behavior of any coal from its ultimate
analysis. Combust. Flame 100, 384–394.
Niksa, S., Lau, C.-W., 1993. Global rates of devolatilization for various coal types.
Combust. Flame 94, 293–307.
Patel, N., Menon, S., 2008. Simulation of spray–turbulence–flame interactions in a
lean direct injection combustor. Combust. Flame 153, 228–257.
S119
Pitsch, H., 2006. Large-eddy simulation of turbulent combustion. Annu. Rev. Fluid.
Mech. 38, 453–482.
Rehfeldt, S., Kuhr, C., Schiffer, F.-P., Weckes, P., Bergins, C., 2011. First test results of
Oxy-fuel combustion with Hitachi’s DST-burner at Vattenfall’s 30 MW th pilot
plant at Schwarze Pumpe. Energy Procedia 4, 1002–1009.
Strömberg, L., Lindgren, G., Jacoby, J., Giering, R., Anheden, M., Burchhardt, U., Alt-
mann, H., Kluger, F., Stamatelopoulos, G.-N., 2009. Update on Vattenfall’s 30 MW
th oxy-fuel pilot plant in Schwarze Pumpe. Energy Procedia 1, 581–589.
Suda, T., Masuko, K., Sato, J., Yamamoto, A., Okazaki, K., 2007. Effect of Carbon dioxide
on flame propagation of pulverized coal clouds in CO2 /O2 combustion. Fuel 86,
2008–2015.
Taniguchi, M., Yamamoto, K., 2010. Fundamental research on oxy-fuel combus-
tion: the NOx and coal ignition reactions. In: Grace, C.T. (Ed.), Coal Combustion
Research. Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York.
Taniguchi, M., Kobayashi, H., Azuhata, S., 1996. Laser ignition and flame propagation
of pulverized coal dust clouds. Proc. Combust. Inst. 26, 3189–3195.
Taniguchi, M., Okazaki, H., Kobayashi, H., Azuhata, S., Miyadera, H., Muto, H.,
Tsumura, T., 2001. Pyrolysis and ignition characteristics of pulverized coal par-
ticles. ASME J. Energy Res. Technol., 32–38.
Taniguchi, M., Kobayashi, H., Kiyama, K., Shimogori, Y., 2009. Comparison of flame
propagation properties of petroleum coke and coals of different rank. Fuel 88,
1478–1484.
Taniguchi, M., Shibata, T., Kobayashi, H., 2011. Prediction of lean flammability limit
and flame propagation velocity for oxy-fuel fired pulverized coal combustion.
Proc. Combust. Inst. 33, 3391–3398.
Tigges, K.D., Klauke, F., Bergins, C., Busekrus, C.K., Niesbach, J., Ehmann, J.M., Kuhr,
C., Hoffmeister, F., Vollmer, B., Buddenberg, T., Wu, S., Kukoski, A., 2009. Con-
version of existing coal-fired power plants to oxy-fuel combustion: case study
with experimental results and CFD-simulations. Energy Procedia 1, 549–556.
Yamamoto, K., Taniguchi, M., Kobayashi, H., Sakata, T., Kudo, K., 2005. Validation of
coal combustion model by using experimental data of utility boilers. JSME Int. J.
Ser. B 48, 571–578.
Yamamoto, K., Murota, T., Okazaki, T., Taniguchi, M., 2011. Large eddy simulation of
a pulverized coal jet flame ignited by a preheated gas flow. Proc. Combust. Inst.
33, 1771–1778.