Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Advanced design optimization of combustion equipment for biomass

combustion
Joseph D. Smith a, *, Vikram Sreedharan b, Mark Landon c, Zachary P. Smith b
a
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, 65401, United States
b
Elevated Analytics, 3575 North 100 East, Suite 375, Provo, UT, 84604, United States
c
Optimal Solutions Software, 2825 West1700 North, Idaho Falls, ID, 83402, United States

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

Article history: Design: of engineered combustion equipment normally involves laborious “build and try” designs to
Received 18 February 2019 identify the best possible configuration. The number of design iterations can be reduced with engi-
Received in revised form neering experience of what might work. The expensive cut-and-try approach can be improved using
24 June 2019
computational aided engineering tools coupled with optimization techniques to find the optimal design.
Accepted 15 July 2019
Available online 16 July 2019
For example, the “best” air duct configuration with the lowest pressure loss and smallest fan size for an
air-fed biomass gasifier may take several weeks using the standard computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
“cut and try” approach. Alternatively, coupling an efficient design optimization algorithm with an
Keywords:
Biomass combustion
existing CFD model can reduce the time to find the best design by more than 50% and can allow the
Computational fluid dynamics engineer to examine more design options than possible using the “cut-and-try” approach. Combining an
Reduced design cycle time efficient optimization algorithm with an existing CFD model of a biomass gasifier to find the “optimal”
Advanced burner design design is the focus of this work. Shape optimization has been performed by combining the optimization
Design optimization tool Sculptor® with the commercial CFD code STARCCMþ. This work illustrates how the “linked”
approach is used to examine design factors to optimize an entrained flow biomass gasifier to improve
overall system performance in a methodical comprehensive fashion.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The present work applies a novel approach using an advanced

System design optimization is an important part of meeting
growing challenges related to environmental concerns related to
NOx, CO and greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass combustion has
received considerable attention to provide electric power in regions
without traditional fossil energy resources. Hybrid combustion
systems that combine coal with non-design fuels (i.e., biomass)
have been used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However,
large differences in fuel quality for non-design biomass fuels (i.e.,
pine, poplar, switch grass, etc.) result in concerns about increased
levels of NOx and CO. Several biomass burner designs (see Fig. 1)
have been developed to maintain combustion efficiency while
reducing NOx and CO emissions for co-fired systems.
* Corresponding author. 1101 North State Street, 210c Bertelsmeyer Hall, Rolla,
MO, 65401, United States.
E-mail address: smithjose@mst.edu (J.D. Smith).
1
Developed by Optimal Solutions Software (OSS) as described at http://
gosculptor.com/.
shape optimization tool called a tool referred to as Sculptor1 to
investigate engineering design optimization of a biomass burner
system. Previous work by several others have applied CFD to
optimize combustion equipment including Smith et al. [1], Hose-
man [2], Goel et al. [3]. and Hajitaheri [4]. In this work, Arbitrary
Shape Deformation (ASD), as implemented in Sculptor, has been
used to control and manipulate the reactor shape and modify the
associated computational grids.
Using ASD, a design engineer defines control points around the
shape being optimized and moves them to morph the shape into a
new design. This allows the engineer to mold the shape into any
arbitrary geometry, which expands the engineer's ability to
examine general shapes instead of being restricted to a single
design. This approach also allows the design engineer to deform the
computational mesh in a CFD model without “remeshing” the ge-
ometry for each new design considered. In addition, linking shape
changes directly to governing physics (i.e. pressure drop, fuel/
oxidizer, flow uniformity, mass flow, drag, mechanical stress, etc.)
allows the engineer to investigate the impact design changes have
on system performance to find the best design not possible using

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.074
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1598 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607

Nomenclature WGS Water-Gas Shift reaction

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
EBU Eddy breakup combustion model Yh High Temperature Devolatilization Stoichiometric
DOM-S4 Discrete Ordinates Model e 4 Ordinates Coefficient
Yl Low Temperature Devolatilization Stoichiometric Charh Char Fraction for High Temperature Devolatilization
Coefficient BERL Burner Engineering Research Laboratory
Charl Char Fraction for Low Temperature Devolatilization CAD Computer Aided Design
ASD Arbitrary Shape Deformation HHV High Heating Value ((MJ/kg)
CAE Computer Aided Engineering DOE Design of Experiments
Soot Soot particles Ah Pre-exponential factor for high temperature
Al Pre-exponential factor for low temperature devolatilization reaction (s1)
devolatilization reaction (s1) Eh Activation energy for high temperature
El Activation energy for low temperature devolatilization reaction (J/kmol)
devolatilization reaction (J/kmol) GUI Graphical User Interface
B Temperature coefficient in devolatilization reactions ISAT In-Situ Adaptive Tabulation
LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Lab

Fig. 1. Typical Biomass/coal burners: a) Low-Emission Scroll-type Biomass/Coal burner (Coen Sales brochure), b) BWE Bio-dust burner equipped with a gas lance and/or an oil lance
(BWE Sales brochure).

the standard “model-build-and-try” approach commonly used devices. To support these goals, computational and numerical
with CFD analysis. techniques have been applied to optimize a biomass fired burner.
The use of detailed chemistry schemes for gas phase reactions is
well established for the combustion of hydrocarbons such as
2. Biomass combustion
methane, acetylene, ethane, propane and butane. The most widely
used detailed mechanism for the combustion of methane and
Coal has been a primary choice amongst fossil fuels, which are a
methane hydrogen mixtures is GRI-Mech 3.0 (developed by the Gas
primary source of copious amounts of energy. Owing to combus-
Research Institute) consisting of 53 species and 325 chemical
tible content and a high calorific value (HHV: 25e30 MJ/kg) [5], coal
equations showing the formation and destruction of intermediate
fired power plants have previously provided a reliable energy
radicals/species [9]. Mechanisms such as the LLNL (Lawrence Liv-
supply to society and industry. With depleting coal and other fossil
ermore National Lab) developed C1eC4 oxidation/combustion
fuel reserves, it is imperative to switch to renewable energy sources
mechanism also includes a general NOx formation mechanism.
that may continue to provide energy of a similar magnitude by
These and other such detailed mechanisms are often available for
combustion processes. Biomass is a renewable fuel with compara-
use in ChemKin/CANTERA format which commercial CFD codes can
ble calorific value to coal (HHV: 10e20 MJ/kg) [5] which is generally
readily use. However, the inclusion of a large numbers of species
available and represents a prime alternative to coal as feedstock.
and chemical reactions makes their usage “as-is” prohibitively
With coal-like compositions, the goal of this work is to design and
expensive from a computation point of view for industrial com-
optimize systems for biomass firing to reduce society's dependence
bustion applications. A common workaround for this issue applied
on fossil fuels for power production.
to gas phase flows is the use of chemistry agglomeration or ISAT
Considering this goal, co-fired units have become more popular.
(In-Situ Adaptive Tabulation) methods to reduce the effective
When appropriate amounts of biomass and coal are mixed and co-
number of chemical species accounted for in the detailed com-
fed to an optimized burner, SOx, NOx, and greenhouse gas emis-
bustion model. Another option is the use of steady and unsteady
sions decrease [6]. Using demonstrated co-firing technology re-
laminar flamelet models and flamelet generated manifold models,
ported elsewhere [7], significant cost savings in power generation
which solve for species in the mixture fraction space to simulate gas
using biomass range from $80,000/year to $400,000/year units [8].
phase combustion. The current model incorporates heterogeneous
In addition, energy security is enhanced using a sustainable energy
(particle surface) reactions as well as gas phase reactions, and
of renewable fuel sources such as biomass to operate combustion
 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607 1599

Table 1 biomass volatiles typically include H2O, H2, CO, and N2. Since
Proximate and ultimate analyses of the woody biomass (pulverized wood). biomass has a higher oxygen content compared to coal, more CO is
Proximate analysis (wt%) generally produced in the gas phase during biomass devolatiliza-
Moisture 5.06
tion. Biomass char oxidation also generates more CO and H2 than
Volatile Matter 82.95 coal char does which provides more energy, which tends to sustain
Fixed Carbon 16.15 biomass devolatilization and consequently affects near combustion
Ash 0.90 near the burner. The homogeneous gas phase reaction mechanism
Ultimate analysis (wt%) with associated chemical kinetic parameters together with the
Carbon 48.6 heterogenous particle devolatilization and char oxidation reactions
Hydrogen 6.4 are now presented.
Oxygen 44.0
Nitrogen 0.1
Sulfur 0.9 2.1. The combustion model
Low heating value (MJ/kg) 18.6

The homogeneous gas-phase reaction mechanism is based on

hence in this case, a global reduced chemistry mechanism as pre- extensive work reported in the literature and validation against
sented is considered a practical compromise for modeling biomass specific experimental tests. The Arrhenius reaction kinetic param-
combustion applied to industrial burner optimization. Previous eters required for these reactions from the literature were used to
work has shown that a simplified two-step methane combustion build this combustion model (see Table 2).
mechanism can perform nearly as well as a complicated detailed
1 k1
kinetic mechanism such as GRI-Mech3.0 in terms of estimating CH4 þ O2 /CO þ 2H2 (1)
2
temperature and species mass fraction profiles within a natural gas
combustor [10].
1 k2
As high-speed computers have become more widely available, H2 þ O2 /H2 O (2)
advanced turbulent mixing models have been developed and used
2
in CFD analysis of flow problems. For example, the standard RANS
1 k3
(Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes) based turbulence models have CO þ O2 /CO2 (3)
given way to higher fidelity turbulence models such as DES 2
(discrete eddy simulation), LES (Large Eddy Simulation) and hybrid
k4f ;k4r

⇔
LES- RANS models. For this study aimed at optimizing industrial
combustion equipment, the steady-state RANS technique was used CO þ H2 O CO2 þ H2 (4)
to reduce the computational effort required to run several design
Reaction rate constants for the first three homogeneous gas-
cases. This approach was justified because most industrial com-
phase reactions are denoted by k1, k2 , and k3 . The water gas shift
bustion equipment operate in a “quasi steady” condition plus
(WGS) reaction includes both a forward step (k4f ) and a reverse step
typical experimental data of species compositions, velocity profiles,
(k4r ). Heterogenous combustion includes particle devolatilization
and temperature profiles are collected as time averaged values.
and char oxidation described next.
Thus, this assumption is valid as long as the combustion equipment
The particle devolatilization model used in this work is based on
does not operate in a highly non-steady condition such as flame lift-
the Kobayashi et al. [11] “competing-rate” model. Overall weight
off, extinction, re-attachment or ignition. Since the present work
loss is determined by:
considers optimizing industrial biomass fired burners operating in
a “quasi-steady” condition, the RANS based models are justified.  ðt 
Comparing numerous coal and biomass compositions shows dmv

¼ mp;0  ma ða1 R1 þ a2 R2 Þexp  ðR1 þ R2 Þdt (5)
that coal generally has a higher C content and a lower O content dt
0
than biomass [5,7]. Accordingly, the contribution to the combustion
process from volatile matter is much higher for biomass combus- where R1 ¼ A1 expðE1 =RTp Þ and R2 ¼ A2 expðE2 =RTp Þ are the two
tion. The mass fraction of volatile content plays a pivotal role in the competing rates that control the devolatilization over different
devolatilization reactions, char oxidation reactions and gas phase temperature ranges. The yield factors a1 and a2 represent devola-
reactions. Devolatilization dominates the reaction process in the tilization at low and high temperatures, respectively. The yield
near burner region, where volatiles evolve from the biomass par- factors are feed specific and are set based on the fuel's proximate
ticles and react in the gas phase while the resulting char particles analysis (see Table 1).
oxidize away from the burner. Based on the fuel composition, The heterogeneous reactions included in the combustion model

Table 2
Reaction rates for bio-char oxidation and gas combustion reactions.

Ar (s1) Q 0 00
Reaction Rate Er nr ½C j;r ðhj;r þhj;r Þ A B Source
(J/kmol) j

k1 4.4 x 1011 1.25 x 108 0 [CH4]0.5[O2]1.25 11.5 2.75 Jones & Lindstedt [12]
k2 2.5 x 1016 1.68 x 108 1 [H2]0.5[O2]2.25[H2O]1 3.1 0.75 Jones & Lindstedt [12]
k3 3.16 x 1012 1.67 x 108 0 [CO]1.5[O2]0.25 2.1 0.53 Wu et al. [13]
k4f 5 x 1012 2.83 x 108 0 [CO]0.5[H2O]1 4 0.5 Callaghan [14]
k4r 9.5 x 1010 2.39 x 108 0 [CO2] [H2]0.5 4 0.5 Callaghan [14]
k5 0.052 6.1 x 107 0 e e e Chen et al. [15]
k6 0.0782 1.15 x 108 0 e e e Chen et al. [15]
k7 0.0732 1.125 x 108 0 e e e Chen et al. [15]
k8 1.2 x 105 7.53 x 107 0 e e e Govind & Shah [16]
1600 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607

Table 3 The gas/solid reactions for biomass devolatilization and char

Devolatilization kinetic parameters used in Eqs. (6) and oxidation along with the gas phase reactions are included in the
(7) [15].
overall combustion reaction mechanism used in this work. All ki-
Parameter Value netic parameters required by these reactions are listed in Tables 2
Yl 0.8 and 3.
Yh 0.81038 The reaction rates for these homogeneous and heterogenous
Al (1/s) 370,000 reactions are based on information collected from the literature for
Ah (1/s) 1.5 E13
the gas phase reactions listed in Eqs. (1)e(4), char oxidation steps
El (J/kmol) 7.4 E7
Eh (J/kmol) 2.5 E8 listed in Eq. (9)e12 and the two-step competing reaction devola-
Pressure (MPa) 2 tilization mechanism listed in Eq. (6)e7. Volatile decomposition
described in Eq. (8) represents gas products evolved from the
biomass particles during devolatilization.
describe biomass devolatilization, which occurs when the biomass
particles are heated to the devolatilization temperature. Prior to
2.2. Biomass combustion base case
devolatilization, biomass particles also evolve moisture which en-
ters the gas phase and affects the WGS reaction. As biomass par-
Based on the reaction mechanism listed above, biomass com-
ticles heat, the model predicts the rate at which volatiles are
bustion was modeled using a CFD model implemented in
produced according to Kobayashi's “competing rate” model (Eqs (6)
StarCCMþ. Input required for this model included the biomass
and (7)). These volatiles then decompose into gas phase species
composition defined in the Proximate and Ultimate Analysis (see
according to Eq. (8). As volatiles are driven off from the biomass
Table 1).
particles, biochar also forms which then oxidizes heterogeneously
The geometric information for the computational mesh was
according to the reactions listed in Eqs (9)e(12).
based on the biomass process burner shown in Fig. 1. Based on the
Competing Steps Devolatilization Reactions
general burner configuration shown in Fig. 2, the burner design can
be optimized to improve biomass combustion efficiency.
Biomass / (1-Yl) * CharlþYl * Volatile (Low Temperature) (6)

Biomass / (1-Yh) * CharhþYh * Volatile (High Temperature) (7) 2.3. Burner geometry

Volatile Production from Biomass

The Burner Engineering Research Laboratory (BERL) 300 kW
burner design [17] was selected for this optimization study. The
C0:4273 H1:142 O0:4634 N0:003 / 0:4273CO þ 0:57105H2
geometry of the burner is detailed in Fig. 3. The burner configura-
þ 0:0016N2 þ 0:01805O2 (8) tion was designed for natural gas, but this study modified the ge-
ometry by omitting the radial holes shown for injecting natural gas
Bio-Char Oxidation via Oxygen
while allowing air swirl from the secondary air stream to enhance
1 k5 dispersion of biomass particles entrained by the carrier air. This
C þ O2 /CO (9) swirling improves mixing, and consequently provides better tem-
2
perature distribution near the burner outlet. Based on a swirl
Bio-Char Oxidation via Steam number of 0.56, the swirl vanes CAD model was developed so that
they created a realistic swirl flow of the inlet air across the swirl
k6
C þ H2 O/CO þ H2 (10) vanes.
Optimizing the local mixing at the inlet has been shown to
Bio-Char Oxidation via Carbon Dioxide
improve combustion performance in coal flames by controlling the
k7 location of the devolatilization zone and resulting flame height/
C þ CO2 /2CO (11) base flame width and the location of the internal recirculation zone.
Bio-Char Oxidation via Hydrogen Accordingly, this work used a Design of Experiments (DOE) meth-
odology to systematically vary the burner design by adjusting the
k8 parameters listed in Table 4 with a computational fluid dynamics
C þ 2H2 /CH4 (12) (CFD) code coupled to an optimization tool.

Fig. 2. Biomass burner design optimization metrics.

 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607
Fig. 3. BERL 300 kW burner geometry [17].
Table 4
Optimization parameters for initial designed experiment.
Parameter Design Change Considered
Quarl Slope Slope increase from 20 to 250
Quarl Design Straight surface compared to convex surface
Step Height Step height Increased by 20% in radial direction
3. Burner design optimization
The optimization tool selected for this work was based on the
Arbitrary Shape Deformation (ASD) technique implemented in
Sculptor and coupled with a commercial CFD code called
StarCCMþ. This linked approach closely links CFD predicted results
for turbulent fluid flow and combustion to the reactor shape to
reduce the effort required to evaluate how the reactor design af-
fects local fluid flow and associated combustion performance.
StarCCMþ was selected for this analysis because of its ease-of-use
and extensively validation for combustion and mixing applica-
tions [18]. ASD has also been included in other commercial CFD
codes (i.e., Ansys-Fluent) which to perform design optimization as
reported by the authors in subsequent work [19].
The traditional Computer Aided Design (CAD) tools do not ac-
count for the coupled fluid-solid interactions inherent in a physics-
based shape optimization. The ASD technique enables one to con-
trol and manipulate the system geometry based on criteria related
to local fluid flow by manipulating the CAD shape and the CFD
mesh simultaneously. This is done by defining a set of control
points around the physical geometry to be optimized. When these
control points are moved, underlying functions describing the ge-
ometry morph the design into a new shape which provides the
ability to find a design that satisfied the optimization criteria. This is
best illustrated using a physical analogy.
Consider a volume of clear, flexible plastic, in which the object to
be optimized is embedded. The embedded object has the same
degree of flexibility as the volume so that as the plastic volume is
deformed, the embedded geometry is also deformed in the same
manner (see Fig. 4). The volume is modeled as a tri-variate para-
metric volume with its deformation controlled by a small set of
control points. By creating the ASD, the user moves the control
points and the associated geometry as desired.
ASD allows the designer to freely create general shape param-
eters beyond those found in the CAD model which allows a smooth
volumetric deformation in real-time without having to re-CAD or
re-mesh the geometry. This tool provides the ability to parame-
terize, deform and optimize shapes into new and improved designs
where the CAD model did not offer the necessary parameters or
degrees of freedom required to perform this process.
1601
Fig. 4. Mesh of a sphere embedded in an ASD grid with control points that can move
and deform the ASD grid deforming the sphere mesh.
This tool has been applied to internal and external flow prob-
lems in many industries where the system geometry affects the
fluid dynamics, heat or mass transfer, chemical reactions, or com-
bustion performance using the following capabilities:
(1) Import and export CAE model to general CFD tools using
common file formats (i.e., STL, IGES, STEP)
(2) Graphical User Interface (GUI) to create ASD mesh for general
shapes with user-defined shape change parameters to
translate, rotate, or scale CFD mesh
(3) Monitor mesh quality during deformation process that al-
lows mesh quality to be used as constraint in optimization
process
(4) Optimization algorithms include Generalized Reduced
Gradient Algorithm or Design of Experiments with Optimal
Latin Hypercube and Response Surface
(5) Close integration between CFD and CAD tools allows transfer
of optimized shape in general file format (i.e., STL, IGES,
STEP)
The present application considers a biomass/coal combustion
burner (as shown in Fig. 1) whose geometry was optimized by
adjusting the step height, quarl slant, and quarl shape. A cylindrical
ASD volume was created using four radial control points with ten
control points around the circumference and six control points
along the length of the inlet portion of the burner (see Fig. 5). The
model shown below considers a 72-degree section of the burner
(Fig. 6). The burner step height was adjusted (see Fig. 7), the burner
quarl slant was adjusted (see Fig. 8) and the burner quarl shape was
adjusted (see Fig. 9).
3.1. Design of experiments and response surface methodology
The Design of Experiments (DOE) strategy evaluates a product
design by analyzing product performance in several possible
operational modes and conditions in an organized fashion to
determine which design factors have the greatest effect on per-
formance. The goal is to adjust the design factors to optimize
product design. Thus, understanding how design factors effects
system performance, product manufacturability, and product
robustness facilitates choosing the best (optimal) design. One way
to use a DOE to optimize product design is to create an approxi-
mation of the feasible design space using an Optimal Latin
1602 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607
Fig. 5. A 4 x 10 x 6 cylindrical ASD volume with control points arranged to change
burner step height, quarl slope, and quarl shape.
Fig. 6. Close-up view of the undeformed inlet region of the burner {{}}
Hypercube. This type of DOE picks points in the design space to
approximate potential designs in an efficient fashion without
having to perform every analysis in the design evaluation. This
feature is especially important when performing large expensive
CFD/FEA analyses.
Experimental design, in which a prescribed set of experiments
or trials (design evaluation) is performed, can be used to investigate
which design parameters have the greatest effect on system per-
formance to identify the best (optimal) design. Primary consider-
ations to consider in developing an experimental design include:
Fig. 2. A 4x10x6 cylindrical ASD volume with control point
planes placed in a fashion to change the step height, quarl slope,
and quarl shape.
 Number of experiments possible given cost and time constraints
 Values for parameters for each experiment
 Proper interpretation of results
Although modifying one variable at a time (as in a factorial
design) may lead to an improved design, this approach often fails to
identify coupling between design variables and can be very costly.
Varying one input at a time cannot capture interaction effects and
Fig. 7. Burner Step height modified by moving control points at outer edge in radial
direction by 20% resulting in a larger step height (original height ¼ 0.00783 m ¼>
modified height ¼ 0.009396 m). For a fixed reactor inlet diameter increasing the
burner step height also decreases the burner quarl slope.
varying multiple inputs simultaneously without an organized
methodology makes it impossible to separate couple effects. The
systematic methodology inherent in a formal DOE allows defining a
design matrix by specifying values of the design parameters for
each experiment. The optimizer tool used in this study incorpo-
rated a formal DOE for this project.
3.1.1. Optimal Latin Hypercube
The Latin Hypercube Design as described by Park [20] randomly
samples parameter space in performing a computational designed
experiment. An Optimal Latin Hypercube2 is a modified Latin Hy-
percube, in which the combination of factor levels for each factor is
optimized, rather than randomly combined. With this technique, as
with random Latin Hypercubes, the design space for each factor is
uniformly divided (the same number of divisions [n] for all factors).
These levels are then randomly combined to generate a random
Latin Hypercube as the initial DOE design matrix with “n” points
(each factor level is studied only once). An optimization process is
then applied to this initial random Latin Hypercube design matrix.
By swapping the order of two factor levels in a column of the
matrix, a new matrix is generated and the new overall spacing of
points is evaluated. The goal for this optimization is to design a
matrix where points are spread as evenly as possible over the
design space defined by the lower and upper level of each factor.
3.1.2. Response surface model
Response Surface Models (RSM) use polynomials of low order
(from 1 to 4), kriging, or radial basis functions, to approximate
response of an actual analysis code. A number of exact analyses
using the simulation code(s) must be performed initially to
construct a model, or alternatively a data file with a set of analyzed
design points can be used. The model then can be used in optimi-
zation and sensitivity studies with a very small computational
expense, since evaluation only involves calculating the value of a
polynomial (or other function) for a given set of input values. Ac-
curacy of the model is highly dependent on the amount of data
used for its construction (number of data points), the shape of the
2
Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) is a sampling method often used to construct
computer experiments [22].
 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607
Fig. 8. Burner quarl slope is increased via radial expansion of control points located at
intersection between quarl and main burner (deformation represents changing slope
from 20 to 25 while keeping the original step size constant by increasing the reactor
inlet diameter).
Fig. 9. Quarl shape changed via radial expansion of control points between step and
combustion chamber wall resulting in deforming quarl shape concave inward.
exact response function that is approximated, and the volume of
the design space in which the model is constructed. In a sufficiently
small volume of the design space, any smooth function can be
approximated by a quadratic polynomial with good accuracy. For
highly non-linear functions, polynomials of 3rd or 4th order can be
used. If the model is used outside of the design space where it was
constructed, its accuracy is impaired, and refining of the model is
required.
The burner design problem consists of 3 design variables: 1)
step height, 2) quarl slope, and 3) quarl shape. Using an optimal
Latin Hypercube DOE and knowledge of how much computational
resources are available, one decides on how many complete CFD
analyses can be run. Using the OLH-DOE, the ‘optimal’ burner
design will be found by arrangement of the design sets within the
4-dimensional design space. Once these were defined, all CFD runs
were executed using parallel computing since each design is a
separate CFD calculation. All cases were run simultaneously on a
large High-Performance Computer (HPC). Once each case was run,
the key function values were post-processed and returned to the
optimization tool to allow the best design to be found (i.e. design
1603
producing lowest NOx emissions, etc.). Also, a response surface
model can be fit with the function data and used as a surrogate
model to explore design space further.
3.2. Design variables: ASD control point groups
The design variables used for this preliminary analysis were
defined in Table 4 and included a change in step height, the quarl
slant, and the quarl curvature. The angles of the swirl vanes were
also investigated but are not shown here.
Although this paper does not include a complete DOE set of
design experiments, this work has been performed and will be
reported in the presentation. Results completed and presented in
this paper focused on varying each design variable (step height,
quarl slope, quarl curvature). The subsequent presentation includes
results of the complete DOE optimization. However, results from
the 3 exploratory cases illustrated the impact of changing the
burner design and demonstrated how the optimization tool can be
applied to combustion equipment.
3.3. Objective functions and design goals
The goal of the design optimization was to find the ‘best’ design
that would improve burner operation. In this case, the key is
identifying how the design changes affected the flare shape and
size of the Internal Recirculation Zone (IRZ). Ultimately, the opti-
mization will directly impact NOx reduction from the burner.
4. Design optimization results
Biomass combustion was initially modeled with no geometric
shape changes to establish a base operating condition. STAR-
CCM þ v8.04.010 was used to model the biomass combustion.
Simulations were run using two Intel Xeon X-5690 CPUs (2 x 6
processors) running at 3.46 GHz with 48 GB RAM.
The Euler-Lagrangian formulation referred to as the Discrete
Phase Method (DPM) was used to simulate the multi-phase flow.
The standard k-e turbulence model with partially-premixed finite-
rate/eddy dissipation (EBU) gas combustion model was used for
turbulent reaction chemistry. Gas phase radiation was modeled
using the Discrete Ordinates Model (DOM-S4) by specifying an
optical path length calculated with the weighted sum of the con-
stituent gray gases. Radiation was not included for the particle
phase. The particle size distribution was assumed to follow a Rosin-
Rammler distribution (see Table 5). Ultimate and Proximate ana-
lyses were performed on the biomass particles which were used in
the reaction scheme as described earlier. The Semi-Implicit Pres-
sure Linked Equations (SIMPLE) scheme was used for pressure-
velocity coupling with least squares technique for spatial dis-
cretization gradient. A second-order spatial discretization upwind
scheme was used for the momentum, turbulence, energy, species,
and radiation finite difference equations.
The boundary conditions for the “faces” of the three-
dimensional segment were assigned periodic boundary condi-
tions with interfaces. The input conditions shown in Table 6 were
Table 5
Rosin-Rammler particle size distribution parameters.
Rosin-Rammler parameters
Minimum diameter (mm) 0.05
Maximum diameter (mm) 0.25
Mean diameter (mm) 0.10
Spread parameter 2.5
Number of diameters 12
1604 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607
Table 6
Base case input data.
Lagrangian Phase
Particle Mass flow: 0.025 kg/s
Particle temperature: 550 K
Gas Phase
Carrier air velocity: 10 m/s
Carrier air temperature: 800 K
Secondary air velocity: 15 m/s
Secondary air temperature: 1100 K
used for the base case conditions. These conditions were also used
to analyze biomass combustion for the three cases with modified
geometries. Solutions for each of the cases were obtained on the
same mesh for each case.
CFD predictions for gas phase temperature, particle temperature
and velocity profiles in the reactor based on the input data listed in
Table 6 are presented in Fig. 10, Fig. 11 and Fig. 12.
4.1. Analysis of optimized burner design
Examining Fig. 10 shows that the flame temperatures for all
cases are similar. The base case peak flame temperature is
approximately 400 K lower than the peak flame temperature for all
other cases. Further, it is observed that the base case shown in
Fig. 10a and d have similar and shorter flame lengths compared to
Fig. 10b and c, which appear to be longer with similar flame lengths.
Based on these observations, it is concluded that the 20% change in
step height produces a more stable flame anchored near the burner,
Fig. 10. Temperature profiles of biomass combustion: (a) Base case (b) Curved quarl case (c) Increased quarl slope case (d) Increased step height case.
Wall Boundary Conditions
Furnace wall maintained at 800 K
Biomass Heat Content:
Higher Heat Value: 18.75 MJ/kg
Biomass Elemental Composition (wt. %, dry):
Carbon: 46.78
Hydrogen: 6.38
Nitrogen: 0.25
Oxygen: 46.59
which supports early devolatilization compared to the other cases.
A closer look at Fig. 10d reveals a ‘second flame’, closer to the flow
axis, originating from the region where the high-temperature
devolatilization occurs, based on plots of volatile mass fraction.
This phenomenon shows only approximately a 5% reduction in
peak flame temperature compared to Fig. 10b and c. Also, the bulk
gas temperature in Fig. 10d appears to be lower than 1400 K,
compared to the design other cases, which show bulk gas tem-
perature above 1600 K.
Secondly, based on the streamlines of particles colored by
temperature from Fig. 11, it is seen in Fig. 11d that the recirculating
particle paths arise primarily from backflow along the wall from top
to bottom. In comparison with the unmodified geometry in Fig. 11a,
there is a drastic reduction in the stagnancy of particle flow caused
by internal recirculation zones (IRZs). It is observed in both Fig. 11b
and c, that the IRZ seen in Fig. 11a on the right of the flame, gets
elongated and tilts towards the wall, at the top. This may be
attributed to the gas temperature profiles seen in Fig. 10b and c,
 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607
Fig. 11. Particle temperature streamlines: (a) Base case (b) Curved quarl case (c) Increased quarl slope case (d) Increased step height case.
where the flame is anchored further away from the burner than
those in Fig. 10a and d. This is due to relatively inefficient particle-
air mixing, which delays particle heating and subsequent particle
devolatilization.
This observation is supported from the velocity vector seen in
Fig. 12. The base case in Fig. 12a shows an elliptical IRZ centered to
the right of the end of the flame. The geometry changes in Case b
and Case c deform flow profiles as seen in the vector plots Fig. 12b
and c which lead to elongation of these IRZs. As mentioned earlier,
the changes in IRZ shape and location result in inefficient mixing,
causing the flames (Fig. 12b and c) to be anchored higher than those
in Fig. 12a and d, due to a delayed onset in particle devolatilization.
However, the velocity profile seen in vector plot Fig. 11d indicates a
breakdown of the velocity component tangential to the flame,
contributing to more uniform mixing in regions with large tem-
perature gradients, leading to a more homogeneous temperature
distribution. It is believed that this explains the uniform bulk
temperature near the flame shown in Fig. 10d.
Based on these observations, it is suggested that the increased
step height before ignition provides a longer draft with a smaller
cone angle, allowing the swirling air from the annular inlet to mix
with a narrower stream of particle laden air. The particle
streamlines from this region appear to anchor the flame in
Fig. 11d, producing a narrower flame than seen in Fig. 11b and c,
which is anchored closer to the burner and has a more uniform
temperature distribution near the flame and a smaller IRZ in the
bulk fluid.
1605
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Combustion of biomass in the 300 kW BERL setup was modeled
using the eddy break-up partially-premixed combustion model.
The geometry was subjected to shape deformations to develop
three unique burner designs. Of the three, it appears the increase in
step height produced the most significant impact on the flame due
to a reduced size and location of the IRZ. The flame also appeared to
be anchored closer to the burner for the step change case which
impacted the region where the first biomass particle devolatiliza-
tion occurs. This was attributed to increased mixing efficiency
created by the swirling air facilitated by a larger step size creating a
narrower primary air-particle stream. The longer step appeared to
create a smaller area for mixing particle laden air with the swirling
secondary air. Although, devolatilization kinetics control the rate of
volatile release which also impacts local flame temperature near
the burner, the increased mixing leads to earlier devolatilization
which also anchors the flame closer to the burner. Consequently,
the dissipation of energy into the bulk gas produces a more uniform
temperature distribution near the flame.
The observation of most important factor effects is based on
visual inspections of the CFD predictions shown in the figures
above. Specific factor effects can be quantified using traditional
statistical design of experiments (DOE) techniques. The purpose of
this paper has been to demonstrate the power of the linked
ASD þ CFD methodology using Scupltor and StarCCM þ to examine
the impact of burner design on mixing and combustion
1606 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607
Fig. 12. Vectors of velocity showing recirculation zone changes to the right of the flame in biomass combustion from (a) base case (b) curved quarl (c) quarl slope increase from 200
to 250 (d) 20% increase in step height.
performance. It is recommended that additional work be
completed using this linked approach in a traditional DOE to
quantify factor effect.
Acknowledgment
Financial support for this work was provided by the Wayne and
Gayle Laufer Foundation and by Elevated Analytics.
References
[1] P. Smith, W. Sowa, P. Hedman, Furnace design using comprehensive com-
bustion models, Combust. Flame 79 (1990) 111e121.
[2] A.P. Horsman, Design Optimization of a Porous Radiant Burner, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, 2010.
[3] T. Goel, D. Dorney, R. Haftka, W. Shyy, Improving the hydrodynamic perfor-
mance of diffuser vanes via shape optimization, Comput. Fluid 37 (2008)
705e723.
[4] S. Hajitaheri, Design Optimization and Combustion Simulation of Two Gaseous
and Liquid-Fired Combustors, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada, 2012.
[5] M. Tamura, W.L. Van de Kamp, Interim Progress Report on the Combustion
Characterization of Substitute Fuels for Co-firing with Pulvverized Coals
during the Period 2000-2001," IFRF Doc N.F106/y/1, 2001. September.
[6] B. Moulton, Principles of burner design for biomass Co-firing, in: 34th Inter-
national Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, Clear-
water, Florida, 2009. May 31.
[7] L. Baxter, Biomass-coal Co-combustion: opportunity for affordable renewable
energy, Fuel 84 (2005) 1295e1302.
[8] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, DOE/EE-0288: Federal Energy Man-
agement Program: Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers, Department of En-
ergy, June, 2004.
[9] G. Smith, D. Golden, M. Frenklach, N. Moriarty, B. Eiteneer, M. Goldenberg, C.
Bowman, R. Hanson, S. Song, W. J. Gardiner, V. Lissianski and Z. Qin. [Online].
Available: http://www.me.berkeley.edu/gri_mec. [Accessed 15 June 2019].
[10] B. Franzelli, E. Riber, L. Gicquel, T. Poinsot, Large Eddy Simulation of com-
bustion instabilities in a lean partially premixed swirled flame, Combust.
Flame 159 (2) (2012) 621e637.
[11] H. Kobayashi, J. Howard, A. Sarofim, Coal devolatilization at high tempera-
tures, in: Sixteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion - the Com-
bustion Institute, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1976, pp. 411e425.
[12] W.P. Jones, R.P. Lindstedt, Global reaction schemes for hydrocarbon com-
bustion, Combust. Flame 73 (1988) 233e249.
[13] Y. Wu, P. Smith, J. Zhang, J. Thornock, G. Yue, Effects of turbulent mixing and
controlling mechanisms in an entrained flow coal gasifier, Energy Fuel. 24 (2)
(2010) 1170e1175.
[14] C. Callaghan, Kinetics and Catalysis of the Water-Gas-Shift Reaction: A
Microkinetic and Graph Theoretic Approach, Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
U.S.A., Worcester, Massachusetts, March 31, 2006.
[15] C. Chen, M. Horio, T. Kojima, Numerical simulation of entrained flow coal
gasifiers Part I: modeling of coal gasification in an entrained flow gasifier,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 55 (18) (2000) 3861e3874. September.
[16] R. Govind, J. Shah, Modeling and simulation of an entrained flow coal gasifier,
AIChE J. 30 (1) (1984) 79e92.
[17] A. Sayre, N. Lallemant, J. Dugue, R. Weber, Scaling Characteristics of the
Aerodynamics and Low NOx Properties of Industrial Natural Gas Burners
Scaling 400 Study. Part 4. 300 kW BERL Test Results, Topical Report, October
1992eDecember 1993, 1994, https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/
searchResults/titleDetail/PB95148524.xhtml.
[18] C. Penny, STAR-CCM New Features List for Version 13.02, 2018 [Online].
Available: http://www.ata-plmsoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/
STARCCM_New_Features_List-v13.02.EN_smaller.pdf. (Accessed 21 February
2019).
[19] J. Smith, V. Screedharan, A. Suo-Antilla, 30 Smith, J.D., V. Sreedharan, V. Rao,
M. Landon, Z.P. Smith, Advanced design optimization of combustion equip-
ment using Sculptor® with CFD tools, in: American Flame Research Com-
mittees 2014 e Industrial Combustion Symposium, Hyatt Regency Hotel,
Houston, Texas, 2014. September 7-10.
[20] J. Park, Optimal Latin-hypercube designs for computer experiments, J. Stat.
 J.D. Smith et al. / Renewable Energy 145 (2020) 1597e1607 1607

Plan. Inference 39 (1) (April 1994) 95e111.
[22] Wikipedia, Latin hypercube sampling [Online]. Available: https://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_hypercube_sampling. (Accessed 18 February 2019).
Further readings
phenomena among raw biomass, torrefied biomass and coal in an entrained-
flow reactor, Appl. Energy 112 (2013) 421e430. December.
[23] C. Chen, M. Horio, T. Kojima, Numerical simulation of entrained flow coal
gasifiers. Part I: modeling of coal gasification in an entrained flow gasifier,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 55 (2000) 3861e3874.

[21] W. Chen, C. Chen, C. Hung, C. Shen, H. Hsu, A comparison of gasification