Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 131–139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Optimization of gas mixing system of premixed burner based on CFD

analysis
Tian-Hu Zhang a, Feng-Guo Liu a,b, Xue-Yi You a,⇑
a
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, 300072 Tianjin, China
b
Dept. of Energy Technology and Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin Institute of Urban Construction, Tianjin 300384, China

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

Article history: The optimization of gas mixing system (GMS) of premixed burner is presented by Computational Fluid
Received 27 January 2014 Dynamics (CFD) and the uniformity at the outlet of GMS is proved experimentally to have strong influ-
Accepted 17 May 2014 ence on pollutant emission. To improve the uniformity at the outlet of GMS, the eleven distribution ori-
fice plates and a diversion plate are introduced. The quantified analysis shows that the uniformity at the
outlet of GMS is improved significantly. With applying the distribution orifice plates, the uniformity of
Keywords: velocity and fuel–gas mixing of single ejector is increased by 234.2% and 2.9%, respectively. With applying
Premixed burner
the diversion plate, the uniformity of flow rate and fuel–gas mixing of different ejectors is increased by
Gas mixing system
CFD
1.9% and 2.2%, respectively. The optimal measures and geometrical parameters provide an applicable
Ejector guidance for the design of commercial premixed burner.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
With the development of burner, the pollutant emission reduc-
tion was always considered as a key issue [1–3]. The Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) method was a powerful tool that can be used
to perform low cost parametric studies involving critical burner
design parameters [4]. Arghode et al. [5] used CFD to capture the
overall flowfield behavior in the burner and found the recirculate
path of gas. Low emissions of nitric oxides (NOx) and carbonic oxide
(CO) were achieved with the help of CFD. Sukumaran and Kong [6]
simulated the combustion process inside the burner and found that
NOx can be reduced by designing combustion conditions of fuel rich
zones. The pollutant emission is closely related to the operating
parameter of burner. Wei et al. [7] implemented a CFD-based
Taguchi method to study the effect of eight operating parameters
on NOx emission. The velocity of air and fuel injection were found
to have significant effect on NOx emission. Under the optimal
operating condition, the NOx emission was decreased by 25.45%
compared with the original operating condition. Ko and Lin [8]
studied the effect of five operating parameters on CO emission.
The results showed that the CO emission can be decreased by
decreasing the gas pressure to a suitable value, enlarging the pri-
mary aeration to a favorable level, selecting a proper thermal input,
or adjusting the optimized heating height. Lezsovits et al. [9] used
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xyyou@tju.edu.cn (X.-Y. You).
the CFD modeling to investigate the factors that cause incomplete
combustion: the fuel–gas outlet of the gas-turbine had significant
swirl and rotation, the diffuser in between the gas-turbine and
heat-recovery steam generator was too short and had a large cone
angle, the velocity of flue-gas entering the duct burner was greater
than expected, and the outlet direction of the flammable mixture
from the ejector of the duct burner was not optimal. After reducing
the flow swirl of flue-gas and modifying the nozzle, CO emission
was reduced to an acceptable level. The pollutant emission can
be notably reduced if the natural gas and air were well mixed before
burning [10]. For premixed burners, the natural gas and air are
mixed by gas mixing system (GMS) with fan and ejectors. The uni-
formity at the outlet of GMS is an important operating parameter
which has not been considered in the other researches.
Liu et al. [11] studied the optimal design of household appliance
burner of low pollutant emission by improving the uniformity of
velocity and fuel–gas mixing of a single ejector. The designed bur-
ner was validated experimentally to decrease greatly the emissions
of nitric oxide (NO) and CO and the concentration of NO emission is
less than 40 ppm. Unfortunately, in their approach, the GMS was
investigated without considering the effects of fan, the assumption
of uniform air flow at the ejector inlet of was applied and the uni-
formity of different ejectors (UDE) was not considered. This paper
follows the above research to realize the optimal design of house-
hold appliance burner of low pollutant emission. The uniformity at
the outlet of GMS is further studied by considering the effect of fan
and multiple ejectors. After the numerical model is validated by
the experimental results, the quantitative evaluations of the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.055
0196-8904/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
132 T.-H. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 131–139
uniformity of single ejector (USE) and the uniformity of different
ejectors (UDE) are both conducted. The optimal structure and
geometrical parameters of GMS are outlined by CFD approach.
2. Description of the GMS and experiment apparatus
The present GMS consists mainly of one multi-blade centrifugal
fan and eleven ejectors. Air is supplied by the fan and natural gas is
injected through the nozzle of the ejectors. The multi-blade centrif-
ugal fan is adopted to supply kinetic energy and pressure buildup.
The fan has been widely used for its small size, compact structure
and low noise [12–14]. The schematic diagram of GMS is shown in
Fig. 1. There is a baffle at the inlet of fan to avoid the strong change
of air flow when the speed of fan is adjusted.
The air and natural gas are mixed in the ejector designed by Liu
et al. [11] (Fig. 2). The natural gas is accelerated to a high speed by
the convergent primary nozzle, which forms low pressure region at
the exit of nozzle and produces the entrainment effect to entrain
the secondary fluid from the suction chamber. The location of the
mixing takes place in converging and diverging section. The high
interfacial area of such device gives an advantage over the conven-
tional contactor. The distribution chamber contributes to the pres-
sure balance of mixture of natural gas and air in front of the fire
holes and it is helpful for the mixing process. To meet the demand
on the full mixing of reactants before entering into the fire holes, a
wedge-shaped distributing chamber is designed.
The experimental apparatus are shown in Fig. 3. The fan speed is
controlled by DC electrical source. The pollutant emission is evalu-
ated by the emission of NO and CO, which are measured by GXH-
1050 infrared analyzer and ECOM-CN gas analyzer, respectively.
The analyzer measures the NO concentration in the range of
0–1000 ppm, the CO concentration in the range of 0–2000 ppm.
The measuring accuracy of the two analyzers is ±1 ppm, so the
uncertainty bands for the experimental results of NO and CO
emissions are both ±1 ppm. The measurement conditions are set
according to the Chinese standards for boiler gas water heater
(GB6932-2001, Domestic gas instantaneous water heater of China).
3. Numerical model
In this approach, several appropriate assumptions are made:
(1) The air and natural gas are treated as Newtonian fluid. For
low Mach number flow here, they are assumed to be
incompressible.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of GMS.
(2) The influence of radiation heat and floating terms are
neglected.
(3) The natural gas is simplified as methane because more than
98% mole fraction of natural gas is methane.
The governing equations, including the equations of continuity,
momentum, species transport and turbulence model are expressed
as the general form [14]:
@ !
ðquÞ þ r  ðq V u  Cu;eff ruÞ ¼ Su ð1Þ
@t
!
where q is density, u is dependent variable, V is velocity vector,
Cu,eff is effective diffusion coefficient and Su is source term. The
terms of the governing equations are shown in Table 1, where p is
the static pressure, Pk is the turbulence kinetic energy generated
by average velocity gradient, Yi and Di,m are the mass fraction and
diffusion coefficient of species i, respectively. The source term Su
describes the source/sink of mass, momentum, species, turbulence
kinetic energy and turbulence kinetic energy dissipation rate in
the computational domain.
The standard k  e turbulence model is used to enclose Rey-
nolds stress. The turbulent viscosity lt is computed as follows:
qC l k2
lt ¼ ð2Þ
e
The turbulent diffusivity can be obtained by the following equa-
tion [15]:
lt
Dt ¼ ð3Þ
qSct
The moving reference frame approach is used for fan rotation. A
coordinate system which is rotating steadily with angular velocity
!
x relative to a stationary reference frame is considered. The origin
!
of the rotating system is located by a position vector r0 . The com-
putational domain for the CFD problem is defined with respect to
the rotating frame such that an arbitrary point in the CFD domain
!
is located by a position vector r from the origin of the rotating
frame. The fluid velocities can be transformed from the stationary
frame to the rotating frame using the following relation:
! ! ! !
vr ¼ v xr ð4Þ
! !
where v r is the relative velocity, v is the absolute velocity. At the
interfaces between cell zones, a local reference frame transforma-
tion is performed to enable flow variables in one zone to be used
to calculate fluxes at the boundary of the adjacent zone. Fluent per-
mits the activation of a moving reference frame with a steady rota-
tional speed. The no slip condition is defined in the relative frame
such that the relative velocity is zero on the moving walls [15].
The inlet boundary condition of fan is fixed at an outward
extended cylinder to assure that the zero static pressure boundary
condition is applicable. The rational dimension of the extended cyl-
inder is determined by the numerical simulation. It is fixed by
requiring that the variation of volume flow rate at the outlet is less
than 0.5% at the speed of 5000 rpm (revolutions per minute) when
the extended length is increased by 5%. The inlet boundary condi-
tion of gas is mass flow. The k and e at the boundaries of inlet are
calculated by the following equations [14]:
k ¼ 1:5ðuav g IÞ2 ð5Þ
1:5
C 0:75
l k
e¼ ð6Þ
l
l ¼ 0:07Dh ð7Þ
where Dh is the hydraulic diameter and Cl = 0.09. The turbulence
intensity I is defined as follows:
 T.-H. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 131–139 133

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of ejector.

1. gas supply system, 2. pressure regulator, 3. flow meter, 4. U shape pressure gauge, 5. Electro magnetic

valve, 6. thermometer, 7. pressure gauge, 8. fan, 9. finned heat exchanger, 10. infrared analyzer, 11. gas

analyzer, 12. DC power supply, 13. burner.

Fig. 3. Schematic drawing of the experimental apparatus.

Table 1
Terms in the governing equations. The outlet boundary condition is the zero static pressure. No-
Equation u Cu,eff Su
slip conditions are used at the walls and the standard wall func-
tions are employed at the near-wall cells. The Semi-Implicit
Continuity 1 0 0
Momentum ! leff rp
Method for Pressure Linked Equations algorithm is adopted to
V
solve the discrete equations. The commercial software Fluent is
Species transport Yi qDi,m + lt/ 0
Sct used for CFD simulation.
Turbulence kinetic energy k leff/rk Pk  qe The grid independence test is conducted. Due to the complex
Turbulence kinetic energy dissipation e leff/re e(C1Pk  C2e)/ geometry, the computational zone is divided into 63 small zones
rate k
when the mesh is generated. Different types and sizes of grid are
Note: the coefficients of turbulence model are C1 = 1.44, C2 = 1.92, Sct = 0.7, rY = 1.0, used in different zones. A coarse grid with 2.1 million cells is estab-
rk = 1.0, re = 1.3. lished at first. The cell numbers of the grid independence test are
2.1, 5.4, and 13.9 million. Several sampled points are extracted in
u0 different zones, and their velocity magnitudes are compared.
I¼ ð8Þ When the cell number is 13.9 million, the variations of velocity
uav g
magnitudes are less than 5% compared to that of 5.4 million cells.
where u0 is the root-mean-square of the velocity fluctuations, and The grid with 5.4 million cells is used in our approach. The grid
uavg is the mean flow velocity. distribution of GMS is shown in Fig. 4.
134 T.-H. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 131–139

continuum is closed to zero and the maximum is closed to the

walls. This is because that there is a contraction expansion section
(see Fig. 1) in the distributing chamber, which results in big loss of
kinetic energy at the centre of the continuum. In addition, there is a
vortex (see Fig. 6) in the downstream of contraction expansion sec-
tion, which stops the high velocity at the centre of the continuum.
So the velocity field at the centre of the continuum is near zero and
the maximum is near the walls.
Fig. 7a shows the velocity field at the outlet of the 11 ejectors
obtained in the standard condition. It is found that the velocity dis-
tribution at the outlet of original GMS is not uniform. Therefore, a
distribution orifice plate is introduced to cover the outlet of each
ejector to improve the USE. It contains seven orifices and the geo-
metric dimension of the distribution orifice plate is shown in
Fig. 7b. The same distribution plate has been used to improve the
uniformity of velocity distribution at the outlet of a single ejector
[11].
Fig. 8 shows the velocity fields in four typical ejectors (Nos. 1, 4,
8 and 11) when the distribution orifice plate is used. After the mix-
ture leaves the distribution plate, the velocity distribution at the
outlet of the ejector is improved.
To evaluate the optimization result, a quantitative index for
uniformity is proposed as:

Fig. 4. Grid of GMS. vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

u N 
u 1 X /  /2
U ¼1t i
ð9Þ
4. Results N i¼1 /

4.1. Model validation
The calculated volume flow rate at the outlet of GMS is
compared to the experiment result. The measured fan speeds of
experiment are used in simulation. Five fan speeds (4537 rpm,
4688 rpm, 4846 rpm, 5066 rpm and 5301 rpm) are measured by
speedometer Testo465. The volume flow rates of mixture obtained
by numerical calculation and experiment are shown in Fig. 5. The
relative error between the calculation and experiment is less than
10% for different fan speeds. It is concluded that the numerical
model is feasible.
4.2. Optimization
In this paper, the standard condition for GMS is adopted that
the fan speed is 5000 rpm and the mass flow rate of methane is
4  105 kg/s. The velocity fields of four typical ejectors (Nos. 1,
4, 8 and 11) without the optimization measures are shown in
Fig. 6. It can be seen that the velocity field at the centre of the
36
Numerical result
Experimental result
33
Flow rate (m3/h)
where U is the uniformity, N is the total number of the cell, /i is the
value of the ith cell, / is the mean value. The value U = 1 indicates
the best uniformity. This index used to evaluate the temperature
uniformity of furnace in Danon’s research [16]. The simulation
results are exported by Fluent, and Microsoft Excel is used to
calculate the value of uniformity index.
The velocity uniformity of single ejector (VUSE) and the fuel–
gas mixing uniformity of single ejector (FMUSE) are studied. They
represent the distribution of velocity and mole fraction of meth-
ane, separately. The VUSE and FMUSE are calculated by Eq. (9).
When VUSE is calculated, /i denotes the velocity magnitude
(m/s) of the ith grid at the outlet of the ejector. When FMUSE is
calculated, /i denotes the mole fraction of methane (%) of the ith
grid at the outlet of the ejector.
Different fan speeds are studied to evaluate the effect of the dis-
tribution orifice plate. The results of four typical ejectors (1, 4, 8
and 11) at different fan speeds are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Both
of the VUSE and FMUSE are improved greatly in different fan
speeds. In the standard condition, the VUSE and FMUSE of all the
ejectors are increased at least by 234.2% and 2.9%, respectively.
After applying the distribution orifice plates, the uniformity of
USE is improved. For improving the uniformity of different ejectors
(UDE), a diversion plate with eleven diversion orifices is added
between the suction chamber and the converging section, see
Fig. 11a. For manufacture and numerical optimization conve-
nience, the shape of converging section inlet is changed to circle

30 (Fig. 11c) from the rounded rectangle (Fig. 11b). The diameter of
the circle is smaller than the width 12 mm of the converging sec-
tion. To improve the UDE, the optimal diameter of orifices of the
27 diversion plate is studied. For easy comparison of the performance
of different diversion plate, a diversion plate with the same diam-
eter of 12 mm for each orifice is named as the original diversion
24 plate. The diversion plates used to study the UDE are shown in
Table 2.
The flow rate uniformity of different ejectors (FRUDE) and the
4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400
fuel–gas mixing uniformity of different ejectors (FMUDE) are stud-
Speed of fan (rpm)
ied. They are also calculated by Eq. (9). For the calculation of
Fig. 5. Computed and experimental flow rate at the outlet of GMS. FRUDE, /i is the flow rate (m3/s) at the outlet of the ith ejector.
 T.-H. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 131–139 135

Fig. 6. Velocity fields of four typical ejectors (Nos. 1, 4, 8 and 11) without the optimization measures.

Fig. 7. (a) Velocity field at the outlet of original GMS. (b) Distribution orifice plate.

For the calculation of FMUDE, /i is the mean mole fraction of meth- be decreased. The optimization process can be considered as an
ane (%) at the outlet of the ith ejector. iterative correction method. In the iterative process, the velocity
The relationship between the uniformity of UDE (FRUDE, of ejector 11 is always used to calculate the other orifice diameters
FMUDE) and the pollutant emission is shown in Fig. 12. The result for the diversion plate. If the flow rate of the ith ejector is bigger
shows that the FMUDE keeps the same trend with the FRUDE. The than that of ejector 11, the ith orifice diameter will be decreased,
emission of NO and CO is reduced if the uniformity of UDE is and vice versa. The orifice diameters of diversion plate for the
increased. Small improvement of UDE induces a significant (n + 1)th iteration are obtained by the following equation:
decrease of pollutant emission.
The CFD is used to search the optimal orifice diameters of diver- V nþ1
i ¼ V n11 ð10Þ
sion plate. Because the FMUDE keep the same trend with FRUDE sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(When the FRUDE is improved, the same as FMUDE), only the nþ1 n V nþ1
i
FRUDE is considered as the optimization objective. When the origi- di ¼ di ð11Þ
V ni
nal diversion plate (same orifice diameters of 12 mm) is used, the
n
ejector 11 has the minimum flow rate. To realize the same flow where V ni is the flow rate of the ith ejector for the nth iteration, di is
rate of different ejectors, the flow rate of the other ejectors should the ith orifice diameter for the nth iteration.
136 T.-H. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 131–139

Fig. 8. Velocity fields in four typical ejectors (Nos. 1, 4, 8 and 11) with the distribution orifice plate.

1.0 1.0
case A case A
Ejector 1 Ejector 4 case B
case B
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
VUSE
VUSE

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Speed of fan (rpm) Speed of fan (rpm)

1.0 1.0
case A case A
Ejector 8 Ejector 11 case B
case B
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
VUSE

VUSE

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Speed of fan (rpm) Speed of fan (rpm)

Fig. 9. Velocity uniformity of single ejector (VUSE) for four typical ejectors at different fan speeds. Case A and B are corresponding to the outlet of original ejector and that of
ejector with the distribution orifice plate, respectively.

The new orifice diameters generated by Eq. (11) might lead to process will be stopped. The FRUDEn is specified as the FRUDE in
worse FRUDE due to the complex interrelationship of different the nth iteration. FRUDE1 is the FRUDE of original diversion plate.
orifices. If the FRUDE obtained by latest three iterations is not When n > 1, the optimization process of FRUDE is shown as
better than that obtained by the previous iterations, the iteration follows:
 T.-H. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 131–139 137

0.98 0.98
case A case A
Ejector 1 case B Ejector 4 case B
0.97 0.97

0.96 0.96
FMUSE

FMUSE
0.95 0.95

0.94 0.94

0.93 0.93
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Speed of fan (rpm) Speed of fan (rpm)

0.98 0.96
case A case A
Ejector 8 case B Ejector 11 case B
0.97 0.95

0.96 0.94
FMUSE

FMUSE
0.95 0.93

0.94 0.92

0.93 0.91

0.92 0.90
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Speed of fan (rpm) Speed of fan (rpm)

Fig. 10. Fuel–gas mixing uniformity of single ejector (FMUSE) for four typical ejectors at different fan speeds. Cases A and B are corresponding to the outlet of original ejector
and that of ejector with the distribution orifice plate, respectively.

Fig. 11. The description of adding diversion plate in uniformity of different ejectors. (a) The diversion plate; (b) original inlet shape of converging section and (c) inlet shape of
converging section after adding the diversion plate.

Table 2
The diversion plates used to study the uniformity of ejectors.

No. d1 (mm) d2 (mm) d3 (mm) d4 (mm) d5 (mm) d6 (mm) d7 (mm) d8 (mm) d9 (mm) d10 (mm) d11 (mm)
A1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
A2 10.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 12.0
A3 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 12.0
A4 10.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
A5 10.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 12.0

Step 1: calculate the orifice diameters for the nth iteration gen- Step 3: calculate the FRUDEn.
erated by Eq. (11). Step 4: if FRUDEn > max (FRUDE1, FRUDE2, . . .FRUDEn1), tn = 0.
Step 2: calculate the velocity for each ejector at the nth iteration Else tn = tn1 + 1(t1 = 0). If tn < 3, n = n + 1, turn to step 1, else
by CFD. stop the iteration process.
138 T.-H. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 131–139

1.00 40 1.00 600

FRUDE FRUDE
a Emmision of CO b

Emmision of CO (ppm)
Emmision of NO

Emmision of NO (ppm)
38
0.99 0.99 400

FRUDE
36
FRUDE

34
0.98 0.98 200

32

0.97 30 0.97 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Diversion plate number Diversion plate number

1.00 40 1.00 600

FMUDE FMUDE
Emmision of NO c Emmision of CO d

Emmision of CO (ppm)
Emmision of NO (ppm)
38
0.99 0.99 400

FMUDE
36
FMUDE

34
0.98 0.98 200

32

0.97 30 0.97 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Diversion plate number Diversion plate number

Fig. 12. Pollutant emission with respect to the UDE (uniformity of different ejectors). (a and b) FRUDE (flow rate uniformity of different ejectors); (c and d) FMUDE (fuel–gas
mixing uniformity of different ejectors).

Table 3
The five diversion plates used to validate the universality of optimal diversion plate.

No. d1 (mm) d2 (mm) d3 (mm) d4 (mm) d5 (mm) d6 (mm) d7 (mm) d8 (mm) d9 (mm) d10 (mm) d11 (mm)
B1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
B2 10.4 10.8 11.2 11.1 10.8 10.2 10.5 10.8 11.5 11.2 12.0
B3 10.4 10.7 11.3 11.0 10.9 10.2 10.4 10.8 11.5 11.3 12.0
B4 10.3 10.6 11.4 10.8 11.1 10.3 10.5 10.9 11.4 11.3 12.0
B5 10.4 10.7 11.4 10.5 10.9 10.4 10.5 11.0 11.3 11.2 12.0

1.00 1.00
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

a b
0.99 0.99
FMUDE
FRUDE

0.98 0.98

0.97 0.97
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Speed of fan (rpm) Speed of fan (rpm)

Fig. 13. FRUDE (flow rate uniformity of different ejectors) and FMUDE (fuel–gas mixing uniformity of different ejectors) at different fan speeds with different diversion plates.

The value of t is the convergence parameter. If the FRUDE of the fan speed is 5000 rpm. Whether the obtained diversion plate is
new orifice diameters is worse than that of last step, 1 is added optimal at all fan speeds should be discussed. Five different diver-
to t value; otherwise the value of t is assign with 0. When the value sion plates generated in the above optimization iteration are cho-
t is up to 3, the process of iteration is stopped. sen to study the universality of optimal diversion plate. The five
For our case, the iteration is stopped at n = 20. With the optimal diversion plates are: B1 is the original diversion plate, B5 is the
diversion plate, the FRUDE is increased by 1.9% (from 0.9713 to optimal diversion plate, and the other three diversion plates are
0.9897) and the FMUDE is increased by 2.2% (from 0.9695 to selected arbitrarily. The geometrical parameters of the five chosen
0.9907) compared with that of the original diversion plate. diversion plates are shown in Table 3.
For the commercial applications, the universality is a key point Fig. 13 shows the FRUDE and FMUDE with the five diversion
for the optimization. The optimal diversion plate is obtained when plates at different fan speeds. It is found that the dispersion plate
 T.-H. Zhang et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 131–139
from good to bad is also B5 > B4 > B3 > B2 > B1 for different fan
speeds. It is found that the optimal diversion plate obtained at
fan speed 5000 rpm is also optimal at other fan speeds. This
indicates that the optimal diversion plate can be obtained at an
operation fan speed. This property is good for commercial
applications.
Although the uniformity of flow and mixing is improved by the
distribution orifice plate and the diversion plate, the gas flow is
blocked. When the diversion plate and the diversion plate are
added, the air flow rate of optimal model is decreased by 18.7%
compared with that of the original one at the fan speed of
5000 rpm.
5. Conclusions
The uniformity at the outlet of gas mixing system (GMS) is stud-
ied by considering the effect of fan and multi ejectors. The pollu-
tant emission is studied by experiment. After the numerical
model is validated by the experimental results, the CFD is used
to optimize the GMS by improving the uniformity at the outlet of
GMS. The optimal structure and geometrical parameters of GMS
are obtained. The main results are:
 The distribution orifice plate improves the uniformity of veloc-
ity and the fuel–gas mixing at the outlet of ejector at different
fan speeds. When the fan speed is 5000 rpm, the uniformity of
velocity and fuel–gas mixing of single ejector is at least
increased by 234.2% and 2.9%, respectively.
 The proposed diversion plate improves the uniformity of
ejectors. The optimal diameter of orifices of the diversion
plate is obtained and the optimal diversion plate performs well
for all fan speeds studied. For a fan speed of 5000 rpm, the
uniformity of flow rate and fuel–gas mixing of ejectors is
increased by 1.9% and 2.2% with the optimal diversion plate,
respectively.
 The improvement of the uniformity of GMS results in the
reduction of pollutant emission of premixed burner.
139
Acknowledgement
The research is financially supported by the special technology
fund of Tianjin University-Wuqing District.
References
[1] Wu C, Chen K, Yang SY. Experimental study of porous metal burners for
domestic stove applications. Energy Convers Manage 2014;2014(77):380–8.
[2] Kesgin U. Study on prediction of the effects of design and operating parameters
on NOx emissions from a leanburn natural gas engine. Energy Convers Manage
2003;44(6):907–21.
[3] Keramiotis C, Stelzner B, Trimis D, Founti M. Porous burners for low emission
combustion: an experimental investigation. Energy 2012;45(1):213–9.
[4] Yapıcı H, Kayatasß N, Albayrak B, Basßtürk G. Numerical calculation of local
entropy generation in a methane-air burner. Energy Convers Manage
2005;46(11):1885–919.
[5] Arghode VK, Gupta AK, Bryden KM. High intensity colorless distributed
combustion for ultra low emissions and enhanced performance. Appl Energy
2012;2012(92):822–30.
[6] Sukumaran S, Kong S. Modeling fuel NOx formation from combustion of
biomass-derived producer gas in a large-scale burner. Combust Flame
2013;160(10):2159–68.
[7] Wei Z, Li X, Xu L, Tan C. Optimization of operating parameters for low NOx
emission in high-temperature air combustion. Energy Fuel 2012;26(5):
2821–9.
[8] Ko Y, Lin T. Emissions and efficiency of a domestic gas stove burning natural
gases with various compositions. Energy Convers Manage
2003;44(19):3001–14.
[9] Lezsovits F, Koenczoel S, Sztanko K. CO emission reduction of a HRSG duct
burner. Thermal Science 2010;14(3):845–54.
[10] Docquier N, Candel S. Combustion control and sensors: a review. Prog Energy
Combust 2002;28(2):107–50.
[11] Liu F, You X, Wang Q, Zhang R. On optimal design and experimental validation
of household appliance burner of low pollutant emission. Energy Convers
Manage 2013;2013(76):837–45.
[12] Lin SC, Huang CL. An integrated experimental and numerical study of
forward-curved centrifugal fan. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2002;2002(26):421–34.
[13] Moon YJ, Cho Y, Nam HS. Computation of unsteady viscous flow and
aeroacoustic noise of cross flow fans. Comput Fluids 2003;2003(32):
995–1015.
[14] Shih Y, Hou H, Chiang H. On similitude of the cross flow fan in a split-type air-
conditioner. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28(14–15):1853–64.
[15] FLUENT Inc., Fluent user’s guide. Version 6.3, Lebanon, NH, USA; 2006.
[16] Danon B, Cho ES, de Jong W, Roekaerts DJEM. Numerical investigation of
burner positioning effects in a multi-burner flameless combustion furnace.
Appl Therm Eng 2011;2011(31):3885–96.