You are on page 1of 12
 

Mathl.

Comput.

Modelling

Vol.

24,

No.

8,

pp.

165-176,

1996

Pergamon

Copyright@1996

Elsevier

Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

 

08957177/96

$15.00

+

0.00

PII: SO8957177(96)00148-3

The Baroclinic

Effect in Combustion

G.

A.

BATLEY

Department

of Fuel and Energy

Department

of Applied

Mathematics

Leeds University,

Leeds LS2 QJT, United

Kingdom

A.

C.

MCINTOSH

Department

of Fuel and Energy

Leeds University,

Leeds LS2 QJT, United

Kingdom

J.

BRINDLEY

Department

of Applied

Mathematics

Leeds University,

Leeds LS2 QJT, United

Kingdom

Abstract-The baroclinic effect is due to the nonalignment of pressure and density gradients,

and its result is to induce vorticity production. Because of the steep density gradients and the

almost

universal

presence

of ambient

pressure

signals in combustion

systems,

the baroclinic effect is a

crucial

mechanism

for the production

of turbulence.

In this paper,

we provide

a review of the results

of numerical simulations of baroclinic interactions between planar pressure signals and cylindrical

laminar flame fronts.

In the first section,

the evolution of a flame front alfected by a single baroclinic

impulse is considered. In the second section, we consider the effect of a double baroclinic impulse on

a growing flame ball within a shock tube and examine the effect of viscosity on the overall burning rate.

evolution

of the

Keywords-Baroclinic,

Vorticity,

Turbulence,

Reaction

progress

variable,

Favre

averaging.

1. INTRODUCTION

Many

of

the

early

investigations

into

the

baroclinic

effect

have

been

experimental.

Studies

by

Markstein

[l]

in

particular,

demonstrated

the

possibility

that

a baroclinically

 

induced

vorticity

field

can

eventually

lead

to

the

turbulent

break

up

of

a

laminar

flame.

In

the

most

famous

of

his

experiments,

 

that

author

introduced

 

a

planar

shock

through

the

open

end

of

a

shock

tube

just

after

a

point

ignition

event

within

the

tube. The

combined

effect

of

the

incident

shock,

and

the

signal

reflected

by

the

opposite

closed

end

of

the

tube,

was

to

induce

a strong

vorticity

 

field

coincident

 

with

the

growing

spherical

 

flame

bubble.

This

vorticity

field

rapidly

distorted

the

laminar

 

flame

front,

and

the

eventual

turbulent

break-up

of this

front

was

clearly

demonstrated.

Further

demonstrations

of the

baroclinic

effect

have

been

given

by Scarinci

[2], and

Scarinci

 

and

Thomas

 

[3].

These

authors

examined

single

shock

interactions

with

spherical

and

cylindrical

laminar

flame

fronts.

Although

this

single

passage

is insufficient

to

cause

such

rapid

transformation

to turbulence

and

the

same

increase

in overall

burning

rates,

the

experiments

are

useful

in that

they

provide

more

convenient

cases,

for theoretical

and

numerical

modelling.

In

this

paper,

we describe

the

results

of numerical

simulations

of two

simple

baroclinic

interactions.

In

both

cases,

the

curved

laminar

flame

front

is cylindrical,

 

and

the

pressure

disturbance

 

is planar.

In

the

first

type

of interaction,

the

pressure

disturbance

encounters

the

flame

once

in

an

open

region,

thereby,

inducing

 

a roughly

annular

vorticity

field within

the

flame

front.

The

subsequent

165

Typeset by &&-T@

  • 166 G. A. BATLEY etd.

behaviour

of the

flame follows closely

the

behaviour

of cylindrical

vortex

sheets

as examined

by

Rottman and Stansby [4].

 

The

second,

more complex

scenario,

involves the double interaction

of the pressure signal with

the flame front within

a shock tube

which is closed at one end.

In this case, the induced vorticity

field is more

complicated,

with

the

amplitude

approximately

doubled

by the

second

interaction

in some regions.

The

importance

of viscous diffusion in determining the overall behaviour is

highlighted

by

considering

the

results

of a similar

simulation

with

Prandtl

number increased

from unity to sixteen. It is observed that the increased viscosity slows the evolution to small

scale features,

thereby

reducing

the burning

surface

area,

and therefore,

the overall

burning

rate.

2.

NUMERICAL

SCHEME

The

code

used for this

work is second

order

accurate

in both

space

and time.

The Godunov

scheme employed

divides

the z-y

plane into grid-cells,

with the variable

values calculated

at the

 

cell centroids.

A nonlinear

Riemann

solver is then

used to calculate

the hyperbolic

fluxes

at the

cell boundaries.

The

first order time step takes

the distributions

within

each cell to be uniform.

The second order time step then gives second order space accuracy by using adjacent

midcell

 

values to calculate

the

flow quantity

gradients.

In order to maintain

monotonicity,

an averaging

function is employed in the regions with large second derivatives to reduce the accuracy of the

scheme to first order.

Diffusive

fluxes

are then

also calculated

at

the

cell

boundaries,

and the

reaction terms evaluated using cell-centroid values. The details of the numerical scheme are described by Falle [5] for cylindrical geometry.

hyperbolic

part

of the

 

3.

METHODOLOGY

The

methodology

is described

in considerable

detail

elsewhere

[6,7].

Briefly, the cylindrical

flames are set up from ignition using a simplified version of the code designed for cylindrical sym-

metry. When the flame front has expanded to the required radius, the distribution is transformed

to a 2-d grid, and a short length scale pressure step is introduced propagating towards the flame.

The

set of parameters

used in this

work is as follows:

 
 

T,

= 3OOK,

 

(3.1)

Tb =

1500K,

(3.2)

ToI =

0.2,

 

(3.3)

e

=

10,

(3.4)

 

=

5

x

107s-’

7

(3.5)

 

LewisNo.

(=

9;

=l

,

(3.6)

Prandtl

No.

(=

y)

=

1,

(3.7)

 

&I

= 0.1 Jm-ls-lK-l,

 

(3.8)

PU

= 1.17kgnY3,

(3.0)

and therefore,

\

 

-

4b

=

9 x 10S5m2s-l.

 

(3.10)

PUCP

 

(Note

that

a single

unimolecular

decomposition

reaction

 

is assumed,

and the rate

of reaction

is

assumed

to obey

an Arrhenius

temperature

depence,

i.e.,

 
 

Reaction

Rate

= k,Cexp

 

-g

.)

 

For this parameter

set,

the

planar

( flame speed is 7.75cms-‘,

> and the reaction

zone thickness

is

about 4 mm. A grid size of 0.4 mm is, therefore, used for these simulations.

 

Baroclinic

Effect

167

 

4.

RESULTS

 

4.1.

Single

Passage

Figure

1 shows

the

full

extent

of the

integration

domain.

In

the

left

hand

plot

(

at

t

=

0.085s

after

ignition)

the

planar

pressure

disturbance

is clearly

visible

immediately

above

the

cylindrical

 

flame

front.

After

0.25ms

(middle

plot

of Figure

I)

the

pressure

disturbance

has

traversed

 

the

flame

region

inducing

an

annular

vorticity

field

shown

in

the

middle

plot

of

Figure

 

2.

This

vorticity

field

induces

cold

gas

from

the

region

above

the

flame

ball

to

be

drawn

 

through

the

flame

region

(see

the

right

hand

plot

of Figure

1,

and

the

continuing

evolution

of

the

 

density

field

shown

in Figure

 

3).

This

cold

gas eventually

divides

the

original

flame

ball

into

two

distinct

burning

regions,

with

the

flame

front

itself,

being

drawn

into

spiral

structures

 

within

 

each

of

these

regions.

As pointed

out

in

an

earlier

paper

[6], this

behaviour

is highly

reminiscent

of the

behaviour

of cylindrical

 

vortex

sheets

as described

by

[4], and

indeed

it

is easy

to

see

that

as

in

the

case

of the

latter

paper,

the

initial

vorticity

field

does

obey

a sinusoidal

variation

 

around

the

flame

front.

As

the

evolution

continues,

 

the

final

set

of three

plots

in

Figure

3 shows

 

that

the

cold

gas

drawn

into

the

two

components

is heated

by

the

hot

burnt

gas,

and

begins

 

to react.

The

final

situation

is

that

of two

separate

rotating

reacting

regions.

 
 

0.050

0.025

 

Figure

1.

The

initial

evolution

of the

density

distribution

during

the

interaction

 

between a positive pressure step with fractional

amplitude

0.3 and a cylindrical

flame

ball of radius

2cm.

 
 

l=O.W5s

 

I - 0.0@5258

 

t =0.06558

 
 

Figure 2.

The

initial

evolution

of the

vorticity

distribution

during

the

interaction

 
 

between a positive pressure step with fractional

amplitude

0.3 and a cylindrical

flame

 

ball of radius

2cm.

168

 

G.

A.

BATLEY et al.

 

I = 0.06575s

t =0.086s

 

0.150 -

 

I = 0.0665s

t

= 0.06675s

 

0.125

S!

5

E

0.100

 

(b)

 

I = 0.06725s

t

=0.0675s

 

0.125 -

t = 0.06625s

t =0.067s

I =0.06775s

Figure 3. The continuing evolution of the density distribution after the interaction

between a positive pressure step with fractional amplitude

ball of radius 2cm.

0.3 and a cylindrical

flame

4.2. Double Passage

We now examine the effect of a double passage of a planar pressure step across a cylindrical flame front by modelling a growing flame ball within a shock tube. As shown in the left hand plot of Figure 4, the incident pressure signal is introduced through the open end and propagates down the tube interacting with the flame ball. The pressure signal is then reflected by the closed bottom end of the tube and retraverses the flame region further affecting the vorticity field. Much has been written about the crucial role of viscosity in direct numerical simulations involving significant vorticity fields. In particular, finite difference techniques rely on the presence of viscosity to retard the evolution to small scale structures, which would otherwise, continue past the point at which the grid can resolve them. Here, a second run has been carried out, with the only change being the increase in viscosity by a factor of sixteen. Figure 5 shows the density distributions at t = 1.5 ms, 2 ms, and 2.5 ms, during both the low and high viscosity integrations, respectively. At 1.5ms, after the introduction of the pressure signal (see the left hand plots of Figure 5), small closed loop filaments are seen to have been formed during the simulation of the low viscosity flame, whereas these features have been surpressed in the high viscosity case. The

Baroclinic Effect 169 t=o t =0.5-m t=lms 0.175 0.150 0.125 0100 Figure 4. The initial evolution
Baroclinic
Effect
169
t=o
t =0.5-m
t=lms
0.175
0.150
0.125
0100
Figure
4.
The
initial
evolution
of the
density
distribution
during
the
interaction
between
a positive
pressure
step with fractional
amplitude
0.3 and a cylindrical
flame
ball of radius
3 cm.
Grid
size
&r
=
dy
=
0.4 mm.
t=2ms
t=1.5ms
t = 2.5ms
Figure
5.
The evolution
of the density distribution
of the low viscosity
between
1.5 ms and
and high viscosity
t
=
t
=
2.5 ms,
during
the simulations
16
PT
=
1
(top),
PT
=
(bottom)
flames.
Grid
size
da: =
dy
=
0.4 mm.
plots
at t =
2 ms (middle
plots of Figure
5)
and t =
2.5 ms (right hand plots of Figure 5) further
demonstrate this tendency. In each case, the two symmetric components are seen to be split
into lower, large burning regions, and upper, small components.
Within
the upper components,
very small scale features have developed in the low viscosity case.
Cold
fuel is drawn
into the
hot burnt gas, thereby,
increasing the overall burning surface.
However,
when the viscosity
is
increased, evolution
to these smallest scale features is clearly surpressed.
An obvious
fact which
  • 170 G. A. BATLEY et al.

0

1

2

3

time(ms)

4

5

Figure 6. The evolution of the total reaction rate during the two runs with low viscosity (Pr = l), and high viscosity (Pr = 16), respectively.

has been made use of in modelling

mean turbulent

reaction

rates

(see, for example,

[8,9])

is that

the

overall

burning

rate

within

a given volume

(G)

is proportional

to the

total

surface

area

of

the

flame front.

The

effect

of viscosity

in controlling

the evolution

toward small

scale

structures

is, therefore,

crucial

in determining

the overall

reaction

rate.

In order to quantify

this

effect,

the

evolution

of the total

reaction

rate,

defined as

R=

J

G k,pCe-EA~T,

is plotted

in Figure

6,

for both

the

low and

high

viscosity

flames.

This

figure

clearly

shows

the higher

values

attained

in the

case of lower viscosity.

After

4.5ms,

the

two converge

as the

available

fuel is reduced

faster

for lower viscosity.

 

5. MEAN

REACTION

RATE

 

The

transition

from laminar

to turbulent

combustion

is poorly

understood,

and we are, there-

fore, interested

in gaining

some insight

using numerical

results

of this kind of simulation.

To this

end an analagous simulation has been performed to that described above, with the Arrhenius

reaction term replaced by a function of the reaction progress variable,

c(=

1 -

C).

Numerical

integrations

can

then

be carried

out

in order to calculate

mean,

and fluctuating

quantities.

In

this case, the previous reaction rate expression

 
 

R = k,CeAEAIT,

 

is replaced

by

 
 

R = 5 x

104c4 (1

-

c) .

By using this approach, comparisons

can

be

made

between

a numerically

average

reaction

rate,

and the laminar

flamelet

expression

of Bray,

Libby

and Moss

 

calculated [g], in which

 

Mean

quantities

are calculated

by evaluating

numerically

integrals

of the

form

 

4

=

l;htW,

 

Baroclinic

Effect

171

using Simpson’s

rule.

Favre

averaged

 

quantities

are calculated

using the expression

Figures

7 and

8 show,

respectively,

 

the

numerically

calculated

Favre

averaged

reaction

rate

(R),

and the expression

values of the calculated

~(1 -c),

using the numerically integrated

values

of F.

(Note

that

At

is here equal

to

2

x

10m5.) It is important

to note that

no account

has been

taken

of the details

of the B-M-L

expression,

so an exact

numerical comparison

between

the two

distributions

is inappropriate,

and the

 

best

we can

do is to give a qualitative comparison.

Figure

7.

This

figure shows the values of the numerically

integrated

Favre averaged

reaction

rate R.

 

0.0000

0.0496

 

Figure

8.

This

figure shows the values of the expression

E (I

-

CZ)

In fact, what these two plots show, is that while boundaries of the burning regions match quite closely for the two expressions, the overall agreement is very poor. In particular, the directly integrated expression is near zero within each component, while the value of the expression E (1-F) is quite significant in the same regions. Several different values for At have been tried, but in each

  • 172 G. A. BATLEY et al.

case

the

two expressions

show

 

the

same

lack of correspondence.

In addition,

unless

the

value

of At

is

less

than

a

few

time

steps,

we have

found

that

fluctuating

components

 

turn

out

to

be

much

larger

than

Favre

averaged

values.

We must,

 

therefore,

conclude

that

this

numerical

integration

procedure

is incapable

of capturing

the

transition

 

from

laminar

to turbulent

combustion.

 
 

Instead

we

 

are

interested

 

in

examining

interactions

involving

already

fully

turbulent

 

flames.

Although

no

simulations

of these

interactions

 

have

been

carried

out

as

yet,

we have

successfully

modelled

the

propagation

of cylindrical

turbulent

 

flames

using

a standard

/c-c approach.

 

This

lays

the

ground

work

for considering

similar

baroclinic

 

pressure

wave

interactions

with

fully

turbulent

flames.

 
 

6.

TURBULENT

FLAMES

 
 

In

this

section,

we

describe

numerical

solutions

to

turbulent

flame

equations

 

used

for

modelling.

The

full

set

of equations

is

as

follows:

 
 

-

W)

+ apl3i~

-

=

3

~pc”4

-

 

at

dXj

axj

a(p)

+ ap&&

 

a (pij + p/u:‘)

 
 

 

at

dXj

-=-

 

axj

 

In

the

above

set,

k

is

the

turbulent

kinetic

energy

(=

f&/2),

and

 

E is

the

turbulence

dissipation

 

rate.

The

usual

notation

for conventional,

and

Favre

averaging,

 

as well,

as fluctuation

terms,

has

been

adopted.

In

this

work,

 

the

terms

-j%,

 

and

-C,@2/k

 

have

been

omitted

from

the

k,

and

c equations,

respectively,

so

that

k,

and

E remain

fixed

in

uniform

regions.

The

Reynolds

 

stress

tensor

is

modeled

using

the

usual

Boussinesq

approach,

i.e.,

 
 

4

86

pk--pt--+-pt

 

2

E

 

pz1;2c[i’=

 

3

ax

3

ay

 

(

-/Lt(g+n)

and

a simple

gradient

model

 

is used

for turbulent

 

diffusion,

i.e.,

where

crt

is

the

turbulent

 

Prandtl/Schmidt

 

number

for

9.

The

turbulent

viscosity

 

(or

“eddy

viscosity”)

is given

by

 

/C-E

 

Baroclinic

Effect

 

173

 

The

following

 

set

of constants

 

is adopted:

 
 

c,

= 0.09,

 

C,r

=

1.44,

C&

=

1.92,

UC =

 

0.7,

Ue =

1.0,

0k

=

1.0,

0,

=

1.30.

 
 

Another

important

aspect

of the

modelling,

is how

to

deal

with

the

mean

reaction

 

rate

term

G.

We

have

used

a modification

of

the

Bray-Libby-Moss

model,

which

uses

an

expression

for

the

flame

surface

area

per

unit

volume.

The

final

expression

 

is

where

the

subscript

R refers

to

quantities

measured

 

within

the

reactants,

 

5’:

is

the

laminar

burning

speed,

g

is

a constant

derived

from

the

 

pdf.

of crossing

lengths

(=

l.5),

c

is

a reaction

progress

variable

(which

in

our

case

is equal

to

l-

fuel

mass

fraction),

er,

is

the

mean

 

cosine

of

the

angle

between

 

the

mean

contour,

and

the

instantaneous

 

flame

at

the

crossing

point

(=

0.5),

and

.&,

is

the

principal

large

length

scale

of the

 

flame

(=

CE.751c1.5/e).

 

The

flame

is initiated

by

adopting

the

following

initial

distribution

of

the

reaction

 

progress

variable

(c) :

.

 

c= (l- ($4)exp(-10(~)10).

 

The

initial

density

 

distribution

is then

given

by

 
 

p=-

Pu

 
 

1+7c

where

T

is

the

heat

release

parameter

(Ta

-

T,)/T,.

 

The

remaining

flow

quantities

 

have

an

initially

uniform

 

distribution.

 
 

Although

some

success

has

been

achieved

in modeling

 

the

propagation

of cylindrical

 

laminar

flames,

we have

 

been

restricted

 

so

far,

to

extremely

 

large

values

for

the

initial

turbulent

kinetic

energy,

which

is usually

expected

to

be

less

than

unity.

 

Figures

 

9

and

10 show

 

the

evolution

of

the

flow

quantities

during

the

propagation

 

of two

flames.

Both

integrations

used

a

grid

size

of

0.2 mm,

and

the

initial

turbulence

length

scale

was

taken

to

be

0.5 mm.

 

The

flame

shown

in

Figure

9

had

an

initial

k value

equal

to

64, while

in Figure

 

10 this

value

was

equal

to

4.

 

Note

that

as with

a laminar

flame

the

propagation

 

speed,

ST,

and

length

scale,

ZF, of a turbulent

flame

are

proportional

to

the

square

root

of the

turbulent

 

mass

diffusivity.

 

As described

above,

the

diffusivity

(DT)

obeys

 

DTo(C.

 
 

e

We

also

have

the

defining

formula

 

for the

turbulence

length

scale,

&,,

which

is given

by

 

i

=

C;.75k1.5

 
 

Y

c

.

%n this

work,

the

initial

value

of I$, remains

fixed

at

0.5 mm.

Hence,

we have

 
 

&cc&,

 
174 G. A. BATLEYet al. Density Radial Velocity t-am 0.2 -10 00 005 0.1 015 02
174
G. A. BATLEYet al.
Density
Radial Velocity
t-am
0.2
-10
00
005
0.1
015
02
00
005
01
015
02
r
(m)
r
(m)
Pressure
Reaction Progress Variable
7’10’
1
l-am
f
6’10’
t-am
5 m SlO’-
% ClO’-
t
t-1llU
0” 3’10’-
8
g
2’10’-
1'10'
I
I
I
1
I
0.0
005
0.1
0.15
02
00
0.05
01
015
0.2
r(m)
r(m)
(4
Turbulent Kinetic Energy
t=*
Tuttwlence Dissipation Rate
3416
2c.w
2.OW
5
1
5w
5
w
1
Ow
50’10*
0.0’1~
010
005
0:1
015
02
00
005
01
015
0.2
r Cm)
r(m)
Turbulence Length Scale
0.54
WC-J-
1
t-am
0.52
mo-
-c
0.50
0
BQ)-
E
d
5043
[I
_
400
t
I
0.46
a
0.44
I
1
I
,
!
04
--I
0.0
0.05
01
015
02
00
005
01
0;s
02
r (ml
f
(m)
(b)
Figure 9. A propagating cylindrical turbulent flame
with
T =
4,
k =
64 m2s-2,
and
I!,, = 0.5 mm initially,
dr =
0.2 mm and SOL =
0.3 me--l.

and therefore, that

ST,lFO:k

0.25

.

For

the two

flames shown

here,

the ratios of flame speeds,

and length

scales are, therefore,

expected

to

be equal

to

2.

This

corresponds

quite well with the results shown in the two latter

plots.

Of course because the k, and E distributions

do not remain uniform, these ratios are not

expected to be exact because the diffusion coefficients clearly vary with k, and E.

Baroclinic

Effect

Radial Velocity

175

-IO--

0.1 0,;s 0.2 00 005 0.1 0.15 0.2 r(m) ‘0) Pressure Reaction Progress Variable 1.0 :
0.1
0,;s
0.2
00
005
0.1
0.15
0.2
r(m)
‘0)
Pressure
Reaction Progress Variable
1.0
:
.E 0.6
s
2
06
i?
t
04
s
'ij
0
0.2
$
01
01
0.15
0.2
r(m)
r(m)
(4
Turbulent Kinetic Energy
Turbulence Dissipation Rate
77
6.10'
t-m
6-
t=4m
5'10'
4'10'
r
f5
x
g
3'10'
E
AC 4-
w
2'10'
2
Ovd
I
1
I
I
0.0
0.05
0.t
0.15
0.2
00
005
01
015
02
r(m)
r(m)
Turbulence Length Scale
Reaction Rate
I
10001
1.0
-g
0.6
E
_r
0.6
“.”0.0
02
r(m)
Figure
10.
A propagating
cylindrical
turbulent
flame
with
T =
4,
k
=
4m29-2,
and
i
y
=
0.5 mm
initially,
dr
=
0.2 mm
and
SOL =
0.3 ms-’
  • 176 G.

A. BATLEY et al.

7.

CONCLUSIONS

Baroclinic

interactions

between

planar

pressure

signals,

and

curved

laminar

 

flame

fronts,

have

been

successfully

modelled

in

this

paper.

In

the

case

of the

single

interaction

we have

seen

that

the

flame

is

split

into

two

components,

and

that

fairly

well

defined

spiral

structures

form

within

each.

This

early

behaviour

is dominated

 

by

purely

Eulerian

effects,

although

 

the

viscosity

does

play

an

important

role

in

controlling

the

tightening

of the

spiral

arms.

It

is

also

clear

that

the

effects

of

the

chemical

reaction,

and

thermal/mass

diffusion

are

significant

within

2-3ms.

This

is shown

by

the

combustion

of the

material

 

drawn

into

the

burnt

gas

regions.

 

In

the

case

of the

double

baroclinic

interactions

within

the

shock

tube,

we have

again

shown

the

dramatic

 

effect

of the

induced

vorticity

field

in distorting

the

laminar

flame

front

and

splitting

the

flame

 

into

separate

components.

We

have

also

shown

that

increased

 

viscosity

retards

the

formation

of very

small

scale

features,

thereby,

reducing

the

overall

burning

surface

area.

We

have

succeeded

in

setting

up

propagating

turbulent

cylindrical

flames,

although

the

tur-

bulent

kinetic

energy

required

to

maintain

 

numerical

stability

is

very

 

high.

It

is intended

to

investigate

 

further

these

turbulent

flames

with

lower

kinetic

energies

by

altering

the

initial

dis-

tribution

 

of the

reaction

 

progress

variable,

and

to

consider

the

effect

of further

imposed

pressure

interactions.

 

REFERENCES

1. G.H. Markstein, “Non-Steady Flame Propagation” AGARDogmph 75, Pergamon Press, Oxford, (1964).

  • 2. T.

Scarinci,

The

generation

of vorticity

by shock

waves in a reactive

flow, B.

Eng.

Thesis,

McGill

University,

Montreal, Canada, (1990).

  • 3. Thomas,

T.

Scarinci

and

G.O.

Some

experiments

on shock-flame

inters&ion,

Report

DET905,

University

College of Wales, Aberystwyth,

(1992).

  • 4. J.W.

Rottman

and

P.K.

Stansby,

On

the

“6-equations”

for

vortex

sheet

evolution,

J.

Fluid

Mech.

247,

527-549, (1993).

  • 5. Mon. Not.

S.A.E.G.

Falle,

Self-similar

jets,

R. Ask.

Sot. 250, 581-596,

(1991).

  • 6. G.A.

Batley,

A.C.

McIntosh,

J.

Brindley

and S.A.E.G.

Falle,

A numerical

study

of the vorticity

field generated

by the

baroclinic

effect

due

to

the

propagation

of

a planar

pressure

wave

through

a cylindrical

premixed

laminar

flame,

J.

Fluid

Mech. 274,

217-237,

(1994).

  • 7. McIntosh

G.A.

Batley,

A.C.

and

J.

Brindley,

Baroclinic

distortion

of laminar

flames,

Proc.

Roy. Sot.

A

452,

199-221, (1996).

  • 8. Moss, Flamelet

K. Bray,

A. Libby and J.B.

crossing

frequencies

and mean reaction

rates in premixed turbulent

combustion,

Comb.

Sci and

Tech 41,

143-172,

(1984).

  • 9. and J.B.

K. Bray,

A. Libby

Moss, Flamelet Crossing frequencies and mean reaction rates in premixed turbulent

combustion,

Comb.

Sci.

and

Tech. 41,

143-172,

(1984).

10. Bray, Libby and Moss, Unified modelling approach for premixed turbulent combustion-Part I: General

formulation, Comb. and Flame 61, 87-102,

(1985).