Mathl. 
Comput. 
Modelling 
Vol. 
24, 
No. 
8, 
pp. 
165176, 
1996 

Pergamon 
Copyright@1996 
Elsevier 
Science Ltd 

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 

08957177/96 
$15.00 
+ 
0.00 
PII: SO8957177(96)001483
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 
AbstractThe 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 

KeywordsBaroclinic, 
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 
breakup 
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@
_{1}_{6}_{6} 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 zy plane into gridcells, 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 cellcentroid 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 2d 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} 
^{=} 
^{1}^{0}^{,} 
(3.4) 

= 
5 
x 
107s’ 
_{7} 
(3.5) 

LewisNo. 
(= 
9; 
=l 
, 
(3.6) 

Prandtl No. 
(= 
y) 
^{=} 
1, 
(3.7) 

&I 
= 0.1 JmlslKl, 
(3.8) 

PU 
= 1.17kgnY3, 
(3.0) 

and therefore, 
\ 

 
4b 
= 9 x 10S5m2sl. 
(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}_{.}_{W}_{5}_{s} 
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}_{.}_{0}_{6}_{6}_{5}_{s} 
t 
= 0.06675s 

0.125 

S! 

5 

E 
0.100 

(b) 

^{I} ^{=} ^{0}^{.}^{0}^{6}^{7}^{2}^{5}^{s} 
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
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= 
JG k,pCeEA~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 BML 
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 (1F) 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 
/cc 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 ^{8}^{6} pkpt+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 
/CE
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 
BrayLibbyMoss 
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&, 
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
_{1}_{7}_{5}
IO
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 
23ms. 
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, “NonSteady Flame Propagation” AGARDogmph 75, Pergamon Press, Oxford, (1964).
Scarinci, The generation of vorticity 
by shock waves in a reactive flow, B. Eng. Thesis, 
McGill University, 

Montreal, Canada, (1990). 

T. Scarinci and G.O. Some 
experiments on shockflame inters&ion, Report 
DET905, University 

College of Wales, Aberystwyth, 
(1992). 

Rottman and P.K. Stansby, 
On the “6equations” for vortex sheet evolution, 
J. Fluid Mech. 
247, 

527549, (1993). 

S.A.E.G. Falle, Selfsimilar jets, 
R. Ask. Sot. 250, 581596, (1991). 

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, 
217237, (1994). 

G.A. Batley, A.C. and J. 
Brindley, Baroclinic distortion of laminar flames, Proc. 
Roy. Sot. 
A 
452, 
199221, (1996). 

K. Bray, A. Libby and J.B. 
crossing frequencies and mean reaction 
rates in premixed turbulent 

combustion, Comb. Sci and Tech 41, 
143172, (1984). 

K. Bray, A. Libby Moss, Flamelet Crossing frequencies and mean reaction rates in premixed turbulent 

combustion, Comb. Sci. and Tech. 41, 
143172, (1984). 

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

formulation, Comb. and Flame 61, 87102, 
(1985). 