Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Combustion characteristics and #ame stability at the microscale:

a CFD study of premixed methane/air mixtures
D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos∗
Department of Chemical Engineering and Center for Catalytic Science and Technology (CCST), University of Delaware,
Newark, DE 19716-3110, USA
Received 28 June 2002; received in revised form 19 December 2002; accepted 20 December 2002

Abstract

A two-dimensional elliptic, computational #uid dynamics (CFD) model of a microburner is solved to study the e5ects of microburner
dimensions, conductivity and thickness of wall materials, external heat losses, and operating conditions on combustion characteristics and
#ame stability. We have found that the wall conductivity and thickness are very important as they determine the upstream heat transfer,
which is necessary for #ame ignition and stability, and the material’s integrity by controlling the existence of hot spots. Two modes of
#ame extinction occur: a spatially global type for large wall thermal conductivities and/or low #ow velocities and blowout. It is shown that
there exists a narrow range of #ow velocities that permit sustained combustion within a microburner. Large transverse and axial gradients
are observed even at these small scales under certain conditions. Periodic oscillations are observed near extinction in cases of high heat
loss. Engineering maps that delineate #ame stability, extinction, and blowout are constructed. Design recommendations are =nally made.
? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Methane; Microburners; Fluid mechanics; Heat conduction; Reaction engineering; Simulation

1. Introduction geometry, composition, and #ow rate, methane/air #ames are

Microburners are emerging as a powerful tool for
portable production of energy. Due to the large energy
density of hydrocarbons (40 vs. 0:5 MJ=kg), microcombus-
tion may eventually replace expensive and environmentally
non-benign Li batteries in laptops, cellular phones, and other
communication devices (Sitzki, Borer, Schuster, Ronney, &
Wussow, 2001). Furthermore, due to the inherently higher
heat-transfer coeCcients of microscale systems, lower
combustion temperatures may be envisioned, which can
considerably minimize thermal NOx formation (Aghalayam
& Vlachos, 1998). For the same reason, microburners can
be eCcient heat sources for endothermic reactions, such as
steam reforming and ammonia decomposition, in integrated
microchemical systems for the production of hydrogen for
fuel cell applications (Ganley, Seebauer, & Masel, 2003).
Experiments performed in 1817 by Davy, and followed
by many groups, suggest that it is impossible to propa-
gate #ames in gaps of sub-millimeter scale. Depending on
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-302-831-2830;
fax: +1-302-831-1048.
E-mail address: vlachos@udel.edu (D. G. Vlachos).
typically quenched when con=ned within spaces with criti-
cal dimensions of ¡ 1–2 mm (Davy, 1817; Maekawa, 1975;
Ono & Wakuri, 1977; Fukuda, Koji, & Sakamoto, 1981;
Lewis & von Elbe, 1987; Linan & Williams, 1993). Flames
are quenched in these small dimensions because of two
primary mechanisms, namely thermal and radical quench-
ing (Vlachos, Schmidt, & Aris, 1994; Raimondeau, Norton,
Vlachos, & Masel, 2002). Thermal quenching occurs when
suCcient heat is removed through the walls, that combus-
tion cannot be self-sustained. Radical quenching occurs via
adsorption of radicals on the system walls and subsequent
recombination, which results in lack of homogeneous chem-
istry. The small scales of these systems make them signi=-
cantly more prone to both quenching mechanisms because
of the high surface area to volume ratios, i.e., enhanced heat
transfer from the #ame to the walls and increased radical
mass transfer. In addition to #ame quenching, blowout can
occur when the burner exit velocity exceeds the #ame burn-
ing velocity (Linan & Williams, 1993). In this mechanism,
the reaction shifts downstream until it exits the microburner.
The interplay between blowout and quenching has been ob-
served in elliptic models with detailed catalytic chemistry
(Maruta et al., 2002). Recent experiments have achieved

0009-2509/$ - see front matter ? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2002.12.005
4872 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882
a stable #ame in microburners through appropriate surface
modi=cation of ceramic materials to limit radical loss and
insulation to limit heat losses, for methane/air mixtures com-
busted between parallel plates with gaps ¡ 300 m (Masel
& Shannon, 2001; Jensen, Masel, Moore, & Shannon, 2003).
While #ame propagation at the microscale is feasible, the
interplay of kinetics and transport in #ame stability and com-
bustion characteristics of these systems is poorly understood.
The inability of conducting spatially resolved measurements
(Eckbreth, 1988; Linan & Williams, 1993), inherent to the
microscale, underscores the need for detailed mathematical
modeling. We have recently performed 2D simulations uti-
lizing the boundary layer approximation in cylindrical mi-
crochannels using detailed gas-phase chemistry and wall
radical quenching chemistry to create engineering maps of
wall-sticking coeCcients and external heat loss coeCcients
that permit #ame propagation (Raimondeau et al., 2002).
The boundary layer approximation ignores axial species and
energy di5usion. In those simulations, ignition was caused
through suCcient preheating of premixed methane/air mix-
tures and the issue of self-sustained combustion could not be
addressed. Furthermore, comparison of elliptic and parabolic
simulations even for fast #ows demonstrated that the slow
gaseous heat conduction is important for quantitative pre-
diction of ignition distance and #ame stability.
Aside from the stability of stationary solutions, an ex-
perimental and theoretical phenomenon that can occur in
non-adiabatic combustion is oscillatory behavior (Uppal,
Ray, & Poore, 1974; Uppal, Ray, & Poore, 1976; Gray &
Scott, 1990). In these cases, stable periodic swings in pro-
cess variables are observed for high heat loss. These os-
cillations may lead to undesired properties such as thermal
shock, vibrations, or reduced conversion. Due to the large
surface area to volume ratio, microburners may su5er from
oscillations and, thus, the potential for oscillatory instabili-
ties needs to be exploited for robust design.
In this work, the reaction and transport of methane/air
mixtures in microburners is studied through 2D fully ellip-
tic simulations by treating explicitly heat transfer through
the wall. The e5ects of microburner dimensions, materials
of construction, external heat loss, and operating conditions
on #ame stability and combustion characteristics are delin-
eated. Oscillatory instabilities are also explored. Finally, us-
ing the results of these studies, regions of #ame stability for
di5erent design parameters are designated, and design rec-
ommendations are made.
2. Model
Premixed, stoichiometric methane/air mixtures are fed to
a microburner. The microburner consists of two parallel, in-
=nitely wide plates of distance L apart and length of 1 cm.
The walls have =nite thickness Lw . Due to the aspect ratio,
the burner is modeled as a 2D system, as shown in Fig. 1a.
A =nite-di5erence method is used to discretize the 2D con-
tinuity, momentum, energy and species conservation equa-
tions in the #uid and the 2D energy equation in the wall,
listed in Table 1. Fluent 6.0 was used to perform these sim-
ulations (Fluent, 2002). Steady-steady simulations are per-
formed, unless otherwise stated. Preliminary simulations we
have performed with surface and gas radiation show that the
wall temperatures are reduced, and as a result the ignition
distance is slightly increased. However, these changes are
not dramatic and radiation is left out from the simulations
below in order to isolate the e5ect of conduction of walls
on #ame stability.
The #uid density is calculated using the ideal gas law.
The #uid viscosity, speci=c heat, and thermal conductivity
are calculated from a mass fraction weighted average of
species properties, as indicated in Table 1, and the species
speci=c heat is calculated using a piecewise polynomial =t
of temperature (Fluent, 2002).
The primary focus of this research is on understanding
the e5ect of wall heat transfer within the system. As shown
below, heat transfer along the wall strongly a5ects the #ame
stability and makes this distributive reactor very di5erent
from the classic CSTR and PFR. Since recent experimen-
tal work has overcome the radical quenching mechanism,
through a surface treatment that produced a “quenchless”
material (Masel & Shannon, 2001; Jensen et al., 2003), and
simulations with complex gaseous chemistry have been con-
ducted for the e5ect of radical quenching (Raimondeau et
al., 2002), our focus here is on heat transfer as a means of un-
derstanding energy management at small scales. Therefore,
a reduced methane combustion mechanism was used for
these simulations, as thermal e5ects are relatively well cap-
tured by a few steps of chemistry (Williams, 1991; Mauss &
Peters, 1993). Speci=cally, the mechanism used is a one-step
irreversible reaction determined by Westbrook and Dryer
(1981),
rCH4 (kgmol=m3 =s)
= 2:119 × 1011 exp[(−2:027 × 108 J=kgmol)=RT ]
×[CH4 ]0:2 [O2 ]1:3 ; (1)
where the concentrations are in units of kgmol=m3 . This
one-step approximation is a useful tool for describing #ame
dynamics as well as #ame responses to external perturba-
tions (Williams, 1991).
The boundary conditions are as follows. At the inlet, a
=xed, #at velocity pro=le is used. This boundary condi-
tion =xes the convective component of the #ux of species
and energy, but the di5usive component depends on the
gradient of the computed temperature or species =elds. Sym-
metry boundary conditions are applied at the centerline be-
tween the two plates. At the exit, a =xed pressure is speci-
=ed and far-=eld conditions are imposed for the rest of the
variables. At the interface between the wall and the #uid,
no-slip boundary condition and no-species #ux normal to
the wall surface are employed. The heat #ux at the wall/#uid
 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882 4873

Norton and Vlachos

Heat Flux = h(Tw,ext –Text)
No Heat No Heat
Wall thickness, Lw
Flux Flux

Velocity, Mass Pressure

½ Gap thickness, L/2
Fractions and Outlet
Temperature
Symmetry Boundary Condition
(a)

(b)
2500
Centerline Temperature [K]

2000

1500
600 Nodes
2400 Nodes
1000 5400 Nodes
9600 Nodes

500

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(c) Axial Displacement [mm]
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic of computational domain along with a description of some of the boundary conditions used in the model. (b) Mesh used in these
simulations. More nodes are placed around the reaction zone. (c) Example of centerline temperature pro=les for meshes with di5erent nodal densities.
The parameters are V0 = 0:5 m=s, kw = 7:5 W=m=K, h = 0 W=m2 =K, L = 600 m, and Lw = 200 m.

interface is computed using Fourier’s law and continuity in
temperature and heat #ux links the #uid and solid phases.
The left and right edges of the wall are assumed to be insu-
lated. Newton’s law of cooling is used at the outer edge of
the wall
q = h(Tw; ext − Ta; ext );
where h is the exterior convective heat transfer coeCcient,
Tw; ext is the temperature at the exterior wall surface, and
Ta; ext is the ambient temperature (taken to be 300 K). Note
that all internal heat transfer between the #uid and the wall
is calculated by accounting explicitly for the convective and
conductive heat transport in the 2D elliptic model within
the #uid and within the wall. The wall thermal conductivity
and exterior convective heat loss coeCcient are taken as in-
dependent parameters to understand how important thermal
management is.
Comparison to published modeling work is worthy. Previ-
ous CFD modeling was focused mainly on catalytic combus-
tion of wide channels. Generally, most work has been based
on the parabolic (boundary layer) approximation, one-step
catalytic chemistry, without considering heat transfer within
the walls. Noteworthy, Groppi et al. have performed studies
(2)
for the catalytic combustion of methane in channels using a
2D elliptic treatment of the walls but a lumped approxima-
tion for the #uid equations, based on a semi-theoretical cor-
relation for the Nusselt and Sherwood numbers (Groppi &
Tronconi, 2000). They also performed studies with 2D and
3D boundary layer approximation for the #uid elliptic treat-
ment of heat transfer in the wall (Groppi, Tronconi, Berg,
& Forzatti, 2000). Hayes et al. have also performed simula-
tions of transient catalytic combustion in channels. The gas
phase was assumed to be in quasi-steady-state. The walls
were transiently modeled using two-dimensional energy
4874 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882

Table 1
R Other symbols have the conventional meaning
Modeling equations. Here  is in kg/m/s, T is in K, and  is in A.

Conservation equations

 
@ @ @ @Vx @Vy
Continuity: = − Vx + Vy + +
@t @x @y @x @y


@ @(Vx Vx ) @(Vx Vy ) @p @xx @yx
Momentum: (Vx ) = − + − + +
@t @x @y @x @x @y


@ @(Vx Vy ) @(Vy Vy ) @p @xy @yy
(Vy ) = − + − + +
@t @x @y @y @x @y
   
@Yi @Yi


@ Di; m @ Di; m
@ @(Yi Vx ) @(Yi Vy ) @x @y
Species: (Yi ) = − + + + + Ri
@t @x @y @x @y
        
@T @T @Yi @Yi

@ kf  @ kf @ h i D i; m @ hi Di; m
  @y 
Fluid energy:
@
(h) = −
@(hVx )
+
@(hVy )
+
@x
+
@y
+  @x
+  −  hi R i
@t @x @y @x @y  @x @y 
i i

 
@ @2 T @2 T
Wall energy: (h) = kw +
@t @x2 @y2

Properties
Mass-averaged viscosity, speci=c heat, and thermal conductivity:
  
 = Yi i ; Cp; f = Yi Cp; i ; k f = Yi ki
i i i

 1=2
1 1
T3 +
Mw; i Mw; j
Binary di5usivities: Dij = 0:0188
pij2 D


15 R 4 Cp; i Mw; i 1
Thermal conductivities: ki = i +
4 Mw; i 15 R 3
√
MW T
Viscosities: i = 2:67 × 10−6
2 

di5usion and radiation. The gas phase was modeled using
2D forms of the momentum, energy, and species equations.
The chemistry was modeled as a one-step heterogeneous
reaction (Hayes, Kolaczkowski, Thomas, Titiloye, 1996).
All these studies have focused on conventional reactor
dimensions.
In our simulations, a non-uniform mesh is used with more
nodes accumulated around the reaction zone, as shown in
Fig. 1b. Computations were performed using meshes with
varying nodal densities to determine the optimal node spac-
ing and density that would give the desired accuracy and
minimize computation time. Fig. 1c shows the centerline
temperature pro=les for some of the meshes used. As the
mesh density increases, there is a convergence of the solu-
tion. The coarsest mesh, consisting of 600 nodes in total,
fails to accurately capture the in#ection point at the igni-
tion point and the maximum temperature. Solutions obtained
with meshes consisting of a few thousand nodes are reason-
ably accurate. Larger mesh densities, up to 21,600 nodes
(not shown), yielded no obvious advantage. All solutions
presented in this work were achieved using a mesh consist-
ing of 5400 nodes.
To solve the conservation equations, a segregated solu-
tion solver with an under-relaxation method is used. The
segregated solver =rst solves the momentum equations, then
solves the continuity equation, and updates the pressure and
mass #ow rate. The energy and species equations are sub-
sequently solved and convergence is checked. The latter is
monitored through both the values of the residuals of the
conservation equations and the di5erence between subse-
quent iterations of the solution.
Simulations were performed on a Beowulf cluster consist-
ing of 17 nodes. Each node contains a 1:9 GHz PentiumJ
IV processor with 1 GB of RAM. Numerical convergence
is in general diCcult because of the inherent sti5ness of
the chemistry as well as the disparity between the wall
and the #uid heat conductivities. In order to assist con-
vergence and compute extinction points, natural parameter
continuation was implemented. The calculation time var-
ied for these problems, depending on the initial guess
 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882 4875

as well as the parameter set, from ∼30 min to several
hours.
3. Combustion characteristics at the microscale
For most cases studied, microburners exhibit similar com-
bustion characteristics that are summarized in this section.
Fig. 2 shows temperature, reaction rate, and conversion con-
tours for a typical case and Fig. 3 depicts the reaction rate at
the centerline and the temperature along the centerline and
the wall interior for the same conditions.
Three regions can be seen in these microburners, namely
preheating, combustion, and post-combustion or cooling, as
sketched in Fig. 3. The width of these regions changes as a
function of operating conditions, and their distinction is not
always as sharp, as discussed further below. In the preheat-
ing region I, the wall temperature is signi=cantly higher than
2320
300 (a)
11.8
0.0 (b)
0 lease so that the #uid centerline temperature in this zone
1 (c)
Fig. 2. Contours of (a) temperature (K), (b) reaction rate (kgmol=m3 =s),
and (c) methane conversion. These =gures are not to scale. The parameters
are the same as in Fig. 1c.
2500
I II III
the #uid temperature, so energy transfers from the wall to the
#uid. The wall thermal conductivity is signi=cantly larger
than that of the #uid mixture, so most of the upstream con-
ductive heat #ux occurs within the walls of the reactor. This
energy is brought upstream from the post-combustion region
where walls are considerably hot. Since the mixture warms
up from the wall towards the centerline, ignition occurs near
the wall and the #ame stabilizes at the centerline, consis-
tent with ignition and extinction studies conducted in 1D
stagnation #ows (Vlachos, Schmidt, & Aris, 1993, 1994).
This ignition mode is di5erent from the case where outside
preheating is used to ignite the mixture. In the latter case,
ignition occurs at the centerline (Daou, 2002; Raimondeau
et al., 2002).
Once the #uid reaches the ignition temperature of approx-
imately 1000◦ C, there is an in#ection point in the temper-
ature pro=le. The mixture combusts rapidly, releasing heat,
which causes a sharp rise in the #uid temperature in the
combustion region II. This “take-o5 ” point is consistent in
temperature with the experimental =ndings of Dagaut, Boet-
tner, and Cathonnet (1991). Because the walls preheat the
incoming #uid, in zone I, it is important that the wall tem-
perature in zone I reaches ∼1000◦ C to allow #uid ignition
in zone II. The combustion zone is relatively narrow (lo-
calized), a characteristic of highly activated reactions. Even
at these relatively small scales, the transverse heat transfer
within the #uid is much slower than the rate of heat re-
approaches approximately the adiabatic #ame temperature.
In the post-combustion (cooling) region III, after the reac-
tants have been consumed, the reaction stops, the #uid cools
down to the wall temperature, and the walls are cooled by
exterior heat losses. There are no signi=cant axial or trans-
verse gradients within this zone. In non-adiabatic cases, both
the #uid and the wall would eventually reach room temper-
ature in suCciently long burners.
In some cases (e.g., Figs. 1c and 3), the maximum #uid
12 temperature exceeds the adiabatic #ame temperature of
methane/air mixture computed for an inlet temperature of
Reaction Rate [kgmoles/m3/s]

Fluid
2000
10 300 K. Traditional CSTR or PFR analysis suggests that
this is impossible to achieve with one-step chemistry. How-
Temperature [K]

8 ever, in this distributed model, the wall acts as a conduit

1500
for heat transfer from the hot exiting products to the cold
Wall
6 entering reactants. This link results in a heat recycle within
1000 the system, which increases the temperatures near the inlet
Fluid 4 and allows a maximum temperature that is greater than
the adiabatic #ame temperature. Because of the overall en-
500
2 ergy conservation, the exiting #uid temperature is in these
cases lower than the adiabatic #ame temperature, as shown
0 0 for example in Fig. 1c for adiabatic walls. In the section
0 2 4 6 8 10 of velocity e5ects, we show an example of higher inlet
Axial Displacement [mm] temperatures caused via heat transfer from the wall.
Despite the small scales, there are still signi=cant trans-
Fig. 3. Temperature and reaction pro=les along the wall and #uid cen-
terline. Three regions can be distinguished: I. preheating, II. combustion,
verse gradients in the #uid temperature and reaction rate
and III. post-combustion (Cooling). The parameters are the same as in until nearly the end of the reaction zone, as shown in Fig.
Fig. 1c. 2 (in the reaction region axial and transverse temperature
4876 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882

gradients of the order of ∼5 × 106 K=m are observed, which 2500

necessitates a 2D simulation of this system). Calculation of k = 0.6 W/m/K
W
an approximate reaction time scale (methane concentration 2000
at the maximum temperature over the reaction rate from

Wall Temperature [K]

Eq. (1)) is ∼10 s, whereas an average radial conduction 1500
7.5 W/m/K
time for a 600 m gap distance is ∼100 s. This di5erence 100 W/m/K
in time scales explains the radial gradients seen in Figs. 2
1000
and 3 for these kinetics and length scales. Despite the #uid
transverse gradients, there are no signi=cant transverse gra-
500
dients within the walls themselves in all cases studied due
to the short timescale for conduction in the wall and their (a)
large aspect ratio. The e5ect of operating conditions on spa- 0
tial temperature and species uniformity will be discussed
further below. 1000

[K]
500
4. Role of wall thermal conductivity and external heat

CL
T -T
loss in materials integrity and ame stability 0

Our simulations indicate that the wall thermal conductiv-
ity plays a vital role in the #ame stability and materials in-
tegrity of microburners. The wall plays a dual, competing
role in the overall heat transfer. On one hand, it provides a
route for heat transfer from the post-combustion region to
upstream for preheating that is necessary for ignition and
#ame stability. On the other hand, it allows exterior heat
losses, which can delay ignition and cause extinction. The
dominant route is delineated next. Note that the importance
of wall conduction on #ame stability has been illustrated in-
dependently for Swiss roll type microburners using an ana-
lytical treatment of the governing equations (Ronney, 2003).
Hot spot formation and high wall temperatures can be se-
rious problems causing the materials to melt or degrade. The
wall thermal conductivity has a large e5ect on the wall tem-
perature pro=le. Fig. 4a shows the wall axial temperature
pro=le for di5erent wall thermal conductivities. Very low
wall thermal conductivity results in much steeper axial tem-
perature gradients within the wall, with lower upstream wall
temperatures and higher downstream wall temperatures. For
walls with intermediate thermal conductivities, on the other
hand, axial temperature pro=les are more uniform, and ma-
terials with metallic-like thermal conductivity are practically
isothermal.
Although the wall is essentially isothermal in the trans-
verse direction for all cases, a large wall thermal conduc-
tivity greatly reduces the axial temperature gradients and
spreads the energy, regulating the maximum wall tem-
perature observed. For example, Fig. 4a shows that for
very small wall thermal conductivities, resembling asbestos
(0:6 W=m=K), the wall temperature approaches the adiabatic
#ame temperature of ∼2100 K. When the wall thermal con-
ductivity is increased to that of a high-temperature ceramic
(7:5 W=m=K) or a low-conductivity metal (100 W=m=K),
the maximum wall temperatures are approximately 1600
and 1400 K, respectively. These temperatures can be real-
izable experimentally.
W
h = 0 W/m 2/K
-500 8 W/m 2/K
14 W/m 2/K
-1000
(b)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial Displacement [mm]
Fig. 4. (a) Wall temperature vs. axial displacement for several wall ther-
mal conductivities. As the wall thermal conductivity increases, the wall
temperature “evens” out, reducing possibilities for hot spots. The param-
eters are V0 = 0:5 m=s, h = 8 W=m2 =K, L = 600 m and Lw = 200 m.
(b) Radial gradients between the wall interior and the center line (CL)
gas-phase temperatures vs. axial displacement for increasing exterior heat
losses. With increasing heat losses, the radial gradients increase. The pa-
rameters are V0 =0:5 m=s, kw =7:5 W=m=K, L=600 m, and Lw =200 m.
To quantitatively di5erentiate between the di5erent re-
gions and monitor the possible #ame blowout, the #ame lo-
cation was computed as the axial position (node) with the
greatest reaction rate. In all cases, this node occurred on the
centerline. Fig. 5a shows the #ame location vs. wall conduc-
tivity for three exterior heat transfer coeCcients indicated.
Figs. 5b–d show temperature contours for selected wall ther-
mal conductivities.
For low wall thermal conductivity, the #ame location is
considerably downstream and blowout may occur depend-
ing on burner length and #ow velocity. For cases of low
wall thermal conductivities, the upstream heat #ux through
the wall is limited, causing low upstream wall temperatures.
This in turn results in slower preheating of the #uid to the
ignition temperature, which shifts the #ame location down-
stream. In contrast to common thinking and previous mod-
els (Daou, 2002), very insulating materials are not better ei-
ther from the hot spot point of view discussed above or the
#ame stability. Lack of upstream heating is one mechanism
of loss of #ame stability.
As the conductivity increases slightly to moderate values,
typical of ceramics, a drastic reduction in #ame location
from the entrance is observed, as shown in Fig. 5a. Our
 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882 4877

5 60
2 Extinction
h = 14 W/m /K
50
4 k = 7.5 W/m/K
Flame Location [mm]

40 k = 3.0 W/m/K

QL [W/m]
3 k = 1.0 W/m/K
30

2 20
8 W/m2/K Blowout
10
2
1 0 W/m /K
Asbestos SiO Al O
2 2 3
Carbon Pt 0
Steel 0 5 10 15 20
(a)
0 h [W/m2/K]
10-1 100 101 102
Fig. 6. Integrated heat loss from the wall to the surroundings from the inlet
Wall Thermal Conductivity [W/m/K] to the #ame location as a function of exterior heat transfer coeCcient for
2380 three di5erent wall thermal conductivities. Extinction occurs at ∼50 W=m.
The parameters are V0 = 0:5 m=s, L = 600 m, and Lw = 200 m.
(b)

(c)
300 (d)
Fig. 5. (a) Flame location vs. wall thermal conductivity for three di5er-
ent exterior convective heat loss coeCcients. Temperature contours for
h = 14 W=m2 =K with kw = 1:1 (b), 3.0 (c), and 14:0 W=m=K (d), re-
spectively. For very low wall thermal conductivities, the limited axial
conduction through the wall forces the #ame location downstream. For
high wall thermal conductivities with low exterior heat losses, conductiv-
ity has little e5ect on #ame location. For high wall thermal conductivities
and high exterior heat losses, increasing wall thermal conductivity shifts
the #ame location downstream. The other parameters are V0 = 0:5 m=s,
L = 600 m, and Lw = 200 m.
simulations indicate that some moderate wall conductivity
is essential for transferring heat upstream to cause ignition
and stabilize the #ame near the microburner entrance.
For systems with a high wall thermal conductivity and
low heat losses, the wall thermal conductivity plays a min-
imal role in #ame location. In contrast, for higher exterior
heat losses, high wall thermal conductivities cause the #ame
location to be shifted downstream and may cause extinc-
tion. In order to understand the primary resistance to heat
loss, the overall transverse heat transfer coeCcient, U , is
computed from
1 Lw 1
= + :
U kw h
Typical ranges for the parameters we consider are
Lw ∼100–1000 m, kw ∼0:1–100 W=m=K and h∼1–
20 W=m2 =K. The typical resistance through a wall of thick-
ness 200 m ranges from 2 × 10−3 to 2 × 10−6 Km2 =W,
whereas the typical resistance of the exterior #uid ranges
from 1 to 0:05 Km2 =W. Thus, for the relatively thin walls
considered here, the primary resistance to transverse heat
transfer is in the exterior #uid, even in the limit of low wall
thermal conductivity and high exterior heat losses.
The above order of magnitude estimates indicate that ex-
tinction for high conductivities and large exterior heat trans-
fer coeCcients is not caused because of enhanced transverse
heat transfer through the wall. For these cases, the wall ax-
ial temperature is nearly uniform as shown in Fig. 5d. As a
result, larger external surface area of the burner is at high
temperatures, compared to the lower conductivities cases,
especially near the burner entrance. This e5ect increases the
external heat losses, rendering the #ame less stable. With
such increased heat losses, the average burner temperature
also decreases, as shown in Fig. 5d, and the reaction is not
as localized (not shown) as compared to the example de-
picted in Fig. 2. Under these conditions, the burner is more
isothermal-like and extinction is a more global type of phe-
nomenon (delocalized extinction mode).
Aside from simulations where the wall conductivity was
the primary continuation parameter, we have carried simu-
lations for =xed wall conductivity by varying the heat loss
(data not shown). Monotonic behavior has been observed;
as the exterior heat transfer coeCcient is increased, the wall
temperature near the inlet is decreased, and the #ame lo-
cation is shifted downstream because the feed is preheated
more slowly. Extinction or blowout eventually occurs when
the external convective heat loss coeCcient is within the
(3)
range of 14 –20 W=m2 =K. Typical values for convective heat
loss coeCcients for gases in free convection are in the range
of 2–25 W=m2 =K (Incropera & DeWitt, 1996). As the ex-
ternal heat transfer coeCcient increases, larger transverse
temperature gradients are observed, as seen in Fig. 4b.
To better understand the underlying cause for the di5er-
ence between extinction and blowout, the heat lost to the
surroundings from the wall was integrated from the inlet to
the #ame location, indicated as QL . Fig. 6 shows QL vs. the
4878 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882
20
Unignited
15
h [W/m /K]
2
10 Extinction
Blowout
5
Ignited
0
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
Wall Thermal Conductivity [W/m/K]
Fig. 7. Stability diagram for methane combustion in a microburner. The
plotted points indicate blowout or extinction and the line is a smooth
interpolation of the points. In the low wall thermal conductivity regime,
limited heat transfer within the wall retards preheating, whereas for high
wall conductivity, heat loss from the entire burner surface dominates. The
parameters are V0 = 0:5 m=s, L = 600 m, and Lw = 200 m.
external convective heat transfer coeCcient. As the exter-
nal convective heat transfer coeCcient increases, there is a
monotonic increase in QL . It appears that extinction occurs
when a constant amount of heat per unit time is removed
from the system in this region, which, for these conditions,
is ∼50 W=m. If #ame conditions are unfavorable, yet the
QL has not reached the critical value, blowout occurs. This
critical value of QL may not hold constant for di5erent #ow
velocities. Based on a simple CSTR or 1D reactor model,
in dimensionless quantities, extinction is expected when the
ratio of heat generated and removed (inverse of Zeldovich
number) reaches a constant value (Ronney, 2003). Reduced
models are obviously desirable to quantitatively test such
criteria using CFD output, and this will be the subject of
future work.
Fig. 7 shows the locus of extinction or blowout points
from the one-parameter continuation runs shown in Fig. 5
plus simulations of varying heat transfer coeCcient men-
tioned above. There are two regimes in determining the
#ame stability within these microburners. For materials of
low wall thermal conductivity, while exterior heat losses
are unimportant, the limited upstream heat hinders ignition,
causing blowout. In contrast, for suCciently high wall ther-
mal conductivities, exterior heat losses play a dominant role
in #ame stability and cause a more spatially global type of
#ame stability loss when QL becomes signi=cant.
Fig. 7 indicates that there appears to be an optimum
range of wall thermal conductivities in the range of 3–
5 W=m=K (obviously, this range may depend on operat-
ing conditions). According to Incropera and DeWitt (1996),
these thermal conductivities correspond to ceramics such as
high-temperature silica and alumina. Within this conductiv-
ity range, maximum exterior heat transfer coeCcient is al-
lowed while allowing combustion within the microburner.
Interestingly, such materials were found also experimentally
to be more robust (Masel & Shannon, 2001; Jensen et al.,
2003).
The results we obtain here demonstrate that self-sustained
combustion at the microscale is possible. The heat recircula-
tion along the walls is key in predicting this behavior. Note
also that old experiments were done mostly with cold walls
(Lewis & von Elbe, 1987) as transient #ames passed through
a narrow channel (reminiscent of our previous modeling
work (Raimondeau et al., 2002)). So the #ame stability ana-
lyzed here numerically is more appropriate for self-sustained
devices used for energy generation such as the one of Masel
and Shannon (2001) and Jensen et al. (2003).
5. E#ects of ow velocity
The e5ect of inlet velocity on the #ame location in mi-
croburners is shown in Fig. 8a. As the inlet velocity increases
from moderate values, the convective timescale decreases,
and a shift in the #ame location downstream is observed, as
expected. At suCciently high #ow velocities, blowout oc-
curs. This behavior is consistent with parabolic (boundary
layer approximation) #ow simulations (Raimondeau et al.,
2002). However, in contrast to parabolic (boundary layer
approximation) simulations, a non-linear relationship is ob-
served for relatively slow #ows. In particular, for suCciently
low inlet velocities, the #ame location increases again sig-
ni=cantly as the inlet velocity decreases, resulting in extinc-
tion.
For low inlet velocities (high residence times), the con-
vective time scale becomes long. In order to understand this
extinction mechanism, Fig. 8b shows #uid centerline reac-
tion rate pro=les at selected #ow velocities. For slow #ows,
axial conduction through the gas and the solid dominate,
spreading the heat, leading to nearly isothermal conditions.
This behavior is similar to the high conductive walls case
analyzed above in Figs. 5 and 7. Under such conditions, the
maximum temperature in the reactor decreases, the reaction
occurs over a larger area of the burner (delocalized reac-
tion zone), and heat transfer near the microburner entrance
is enhanced. If the axial conduction draws too much heat
away from the #ame, the exterior heat loss is enhanced, and
extinction occurs. For lower inlet velocities, the wall tem-
perature remains high while the power generated by the re-
action decreases, resulting in an increase in heat lost relative
to heat generated, causing extinction.
For fast inlet velocities (low residence times), the con-
vective time scale becomes short compared to the axial con-
ductive time scale. This has a twofold e5ect. First, the #ame
loses little heat to the wall and more power is generated, re-
sulting in a high temperature, and a short, intense reaction
zone. Second, the wall takes a longer distance to preheat the
feed to the ignition temperature increasing the #ame loca-
tion, leading to blowout.
 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882 4879

5 2360 (a)
(b)
4 (c)
Flame Location [mm]

1330
3
(d)

2 300
Contours of Temperature [K]
9.70 (a)
1 (b)
(c)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 4.85
(d)
(a) Inlet Velocity (m/s)
30 1500 0.00
Contours of Reaction Rate [kgmole/m3/s]
Reaction Rate [kgmoles/m /s]

25 1000
0 (a)
3

(b)
To [K]

0.5 (c)
20 500 1.1
1.9 m/s 0.5
1.40 m/s (d)
0
15 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
y [mm]

10 1
Contours of Conversion
V = 0.55 m/s
5 Fig. 9. Contours of temperature, reaction rate, and conversion for plate
0.38 m/s
distance L of (a) 400 m, (b) 600 m, (c) 1000 m, and (d) 4000 m.
0 The parameters are V0 = 0:5 m=s, kw = 7:5 W=m=K, h = 0 W=m2 =K, and
0 1 2 3 4 5 Lw = 200 m.
(b) Axial Displacement [mm]

Fig. 8. (a) Flame location vs. inlet velocity. A minimum #ame location
exists. For fast #ows, blowout occurs, whereas for slow #ows, global
type extinction occurs due to slow convective heat transfer. (b) Reaction
rate pro=les on the #uid centerline. High velocities exhibit a thin intense
reaction zone and slow velocities exhibit broader, less intense reaction
zone. The inset shows transverse inlet temperature pro=les for three inlet
velocities indicated. The parameters are kw =7:5 W=m=K, h=8 W=m2 =K,
L = 600 m, and Lw = 200 m.
The inset in Fig. 8b shows the transverse temperature
pro=les at the inlet for three di5erent inlet velocities. Sharp
temperature gradients near the inlet caused by energy con-
duction from the hot walls result in increased inlet temper-
atures, which in turn cause ignition and higher than normal
adiabatic #ame temperatures. Large inlet velocities decrease
the temperature gradients, causing inlet temperatures to be
closer to 300 K. For large-enough inlet velocities, the inlet
solution approaches a Dirichlet-like situation.
6. E#ects of microburner dimensions
The above simulations have been conducted for a few
microburner dimensions. Here we compare the combustion
characteristics in microburners when varying the separation
distance between the two plates as well as the wall thickness.
Fig. 9 shows contours of temperature, reaction rate, and
conversion for several plate separations. For large separa-
tion distances, such as the 4 mm case, the reaction rate is
low and reaction spreads out over approximately 5 –6 mm
of the burner due to slow heat transfer from the wall where
ignition starts towards the centerline where uncombusted
mixture exists. For smaller separation distances, such as the
600 m case, reaction is more localized, with greater inten-
sity, causing steeper temperature and composition gradients.
When the separation distance is small (e.g., 400 m),
the transverse length scale of the #uid is small enough that
the transverse heat transfer a5ects the centerline tempera-
ture, and thus, the maximum #uid temperature. In this case,
the maximum #uid temperature is signi=cantly lower than
that for larger separations and incomplete conversion is ob-
served. It appears that for channels that are 400 m and be-
low, combustion becomes diCcult because of the increased
transverse heat transfer and there exists a point where com-
bustion is no longer possible. Jensen et al. experimentally
determined this distance to be on the order of 100 m for
materials that do not adsorb radicals (Jensen et al., 2003).
There appears to be an optimum plate separation, of approx-
imately 600 m, that exhibits the shortest #ame location.
This distance permits the wall to preheat the inlet #uid fast
4880 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882

2000 2800
LW = 50 µm
2600
1800
Wall Temperature [K]

2400

Temperature [K]
200 µm 2200
1600
2000
600 µm
1400 1800
1600
1200
1400

1000 1200
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Axial Displacement [mm] (a) Conversion

Fig. 10. Axial wall temperature pro=les for three di5erent wall thick- 2800
nesses. Thicker walls show higher temperature uniformity and lower tem- 2600
perature hotspots. The parameters are V0 = 0:5 m=s, kw = 7:5 W=m=K,
h = 6 W=m2 =K, and L = 600 m. 2400

Temperature [K]
2200

enough, yet not to reduce signi=cantly the centerline tem- 2000

perature.
The wall thickness has also a large e5ect on the tem-
perature pro=le in the microburner walls. Fig. 10 contrasts
the wall axial temperature pro=les for 50, 200, and 600 m
walls. For thin walls, the wall temperature pro=le is similar
to that of the #uid. There is a peak temperature of approx-
imately 1900 K near the #ame location, and the inlet wall
is ∼1000 K. Thicker walls exhibit more uniform temper-
atures, as they have larger area for axial heat conduction.
As a result of temperature uniformity, lower maximum tem-
peratures (∼1500–1600 K) and higher wall temperatures
near the inlet (∼1350–1450 K) are observed. These higher
inlet temperatures tend to enhance #ame stability because
of their increased preheating capability but promote overall
heat loss, especially from the crucial preheating region. In
previous experimental work, #ames migrated to the areas
of the burners with thicker walls (Jensen et al., 2003). It is
possible that this is due to the increased axial heat transfer.
7. Periodic oscillatory behavior near extinction
The previous solutions are stationary. Near extinction, the
stationary solution can become unstable in cases of high heat
losses, giving rise to periodic behavior. Under these condi-
tions, the real part of at least one of the eigenvalues of the
Jacobian becomes positive. Transient simulations are then
necessary to observe the behavior of the system, especially
far from Hopf bifurcations. For these transient cases, a tran-
sient solver was used, using a slightly perturbed steady state
solution as the initial condition. As an example, Fig. 11a
shows a limit cycle for a point on the centerline in one of
these unstable cases. Fig. 11b shows the temperature of the
point used in Fig. 11a as a function of time. The period of
these cycles is on the order of 1 ms.
1800
1600
1400
1200
0.005 0.01 0.015
(b) Time [s]
Fig. 11. (a) Limit cycle for a point on the centerline, indicating
self-sustained oscillations in cases of high heat losses near extinction.
(b) The temperature of this point vs. time. The oscillations occur with
a period of ∼1 ms. The parameters are V0 = 0:5 m=s, kw = 7:5 m=s,
h = 12 W=m2 =K, L = 600 m, and Lw = 200 m.
In these oscillatory cases, the reaction quickly uses up the
methane and oxygen, causing a rapid increase in #uid tem-
perature. Once the conversion is almost complete, the reac-
tion dies, and the gaseous temperature drops, as fresh fuel
and air enter the reactor. The thermal mass of the reactor
walls is large enough that the wall temperature is practically
constant. The wall then serves as a heat source for re-ignition
of the cold incoming reactants. While the di5erences in os-
cillatory behavior observed here from that in a CSTR with
heat loss need further investigation, the presence of the wall
and its nearly constant temperature may play an interesting
and possibly unique role in oscillations of the distributed
system.
Since the wall temperature changes less than 1 K in these
oscillations, thermal shock is not a consideration. A primary
concern with these oscillations is pressure waves associated
with the rapid density changes in the #uid. These oscillations
cause #uctuations in the local pressure with swings of up to
150 Pa for the depicted conditions that may vibrate the sys-
tem apart. This is then a consideration for small-scale com-
bustion devices where heat losses are signi=cant. (Norton
and Vlachos, 2003).
 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882
8. Conclusions
The combustion characteristics in microburners were
studied using an elliptic two-dimensional computational
#uid dynamics model. Transverse gradients in tempera-
ture and reaction rate were observed for many conditions,
despite the small scale of the burner. Thick walls and/or
larger thermal conductivities tend to make the burner more
isothermal-like.
The wall thermal conductivity plays a vital role in #ame
stability. Two mechanisms of losing #ame stability have
been observed. Low wall thermal conductivity limits the
upstream heat transfer through the wall, which limits the
preheating of the feed, inhibiting the onset of combustion,
and causes blowout. Low wall thermal conductivity also
causes hot spots of high temperatures within the wall, which
can lead to mechanical failure. High thermal conductivity
walls are essentially isothermal and have lower tempera-
tures. However, they o5er a larger hot area for external heat
transfer and become susceptible to spatially global-like ex-
tinction. An optimum wall thermal conductivity of approxi-
mately 3–5 W=m=K, typical of ceramics, allows the largest
external heat transfer coeCcient for the conditions studied.
The #ow rate has a strong e5ect on #ame stability. Fast
#ows decrease the rate of heat transfer upstream and can
cause blowout. Slow #ows can also cause loss of #ame
stability by making conductive heat transfer so dominant
that the reaction zone is spread, and the external heat losses
become too large compared to heat generation to sustain
combustion. An optimum #ow velocity for greatest #ame
stability exists (∼0:5 m=s for the conditions studied here).
Thin walls (∼50 m) exhibit large axial temperature gra-
dients, resulting in hot spots. Thicker walls (∼200–600 m)
have a large cross-sectional area, which allows for greater
heat transfer and more uniform, lower temperatures. Burn-
ers with small plate-separation distances (∼400 m) su5er
from axial heat transfer through the walls of the burner, re-
ducing the maximum #uid temperature and #ame stability.
Burners with large gaps (∼4 mm) slowly transport heat ax-
ially to preheat the feed, resulting in a late #ame ignition
and possible blowout.
Combustion at the microscale can o5er advantages. Aside
from the larger radial heat transfers, faster ignition can hap-
pen, and low temperatures could be envisioned (mild com-
bustion especially near extinction) that could be bene=cial
for NOx reduction. However, loss of #ame stability due to
blowout, extinction, or oscillations and high wall tempera-
tures are main issues that require careful thermal manage-
ment. Ideally, burner walls should have anisotropic thermal
conductivity; they should allow axial but inhibit transverse
conduction. Such anisotropic walls would allow upstream
heat #ux to preheat the feed, yet not allow transverse heat
loss to the surroundings. This can be accomplished exper-
imentally through either composite materials or by manu-
facturing small volumes of vacuum within the burner walls
with high aspect ratios.
4881
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Army Research OCce
under contract DAAD19-01-1-0582. Any opinions, =ndings,
and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of
the authors and do not necessarily re#ect the views of the
Army Research OCce. The authors also like to thank Prof.
Paul Ronney of USC for useful comments on the submitted
manuscript.
References
Aghalayam, P., & Vlachos, D. G. (1998). The roles of thermal and
chemical quenching in NOx and fuel emissions: Combustion of
surface-stabilized hydrogen/air mixtures. A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 44(9),
2025–2034.
Dagaut, P., Boettner, J. C., & Cathonnet, M. (1991). Methane oxidation:
Experimental and kinetic modeling study. Combustion Science and
Technology, 77, 127–148.
Daou, J. (2002). In#uence of conductive heat-losses on the propagation
of premixed #ames in channels. Combustustion and Flame, 128,
321–339.
Davy, H. (1817). Some researches on #ame. Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, 107, 45–76.
Eckbreth, A. C. (1988). Laser diagnostics for combustion temperature
and species. Kent, United Kingdom: Abacus Press.
Fluent (2002). Fluent 6.0. Lebanon, N.H.
Fukuda, M., Koji, K., & Sakamoto, M. (1981). On quenching distance
of mixtures of methane and hydrogen with air. Bulletin of the JSME,
24(193), 1192–1197.
Ganley, J. C., Seebauer, E. G., & Masel, R. I. (2003). Porous anodic
alumina posts as a catalyst support in microreactors for production of
hydrogen from ammonia. A.I.Ch.E. Journal. (accepted).
Gray, P., & Scott, S. K. (1990). Chemical oscillations and instabilities,
nonlinear chemical kinetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Groppi, G., & Tronconi, E. (2000). Design of novel monolith catalyst
supports for gas/solid reactions with heat exchange. Chemical
Engineering Science, 55, 2161–2171.
Groppi, G., Tronconi, E., Berg, M., & Forzatti, P. (2000). Development
and application of mathematical models of pilot scale catalytic
combustors fueled by gasi=ed biomasses. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research, 39, 4106–4113.
Hayes, R. E., Kolaczkowski, S. T., Thomas, W. J., & Titiloye, J. (1996).
Transient Experiments and Modeling of the Catalytic Combustion of
Methane in a Monolith Reactor. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research, 35, 406–414.
Incropera, F. P., & DeWitt, D. P. (1996). Fundamentals of heat and
mass transfer. New York: Wiley.
Jensen, C., Masel, R. I., Moore, G. V., & Shannon, M. (2003). Burner
designs for microcombustion. Combustion Science and Technology,
In Press.
Lewis, B., & von Elbe, G. (1987). Combustion, >ames and explosions
of gases. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Linan, A., & Williams, F. A. (1993). Fundamental aspects of combustion.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Maekawa, M. (1975). Flame quenching by rectangular channels as
a function of channel length for methane-air mixture. Combustion
Science and Technology, 11, 141–145.
4882 D. G. Norton, D. G. Vlachos / Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 4871 – 4882
Maruta, K., Koichi, T., Ahn, J., Borer, K., Sitzki, L., Ronney, P., &
Deutschmann, O. (2002). Extinction limits of catalytic combustion
in microchannels. The twenty ninth international symposium on
combustion, Sapporo, Japan: The Combustion Institute.
Masel, R. I., & Shannon, M. (2001). Microcombustor having
submillimeter critical dimensions, US06193501. USA, The Board of
Trustees of the University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Mauss, F., & Peters, N. (1993). Reduced Kinetic Mechanisms for
Premixed Methane-Air Flames. In N. Peters, & B. Rogg (Eds.),
Reduced kinetic mechanisms for applications in combustion systems,
Vol. 15 (pp. 58–75). New York: Springer.
Norton, D. G., & Vlachos, D. G. (2003). Oscillations in microburners:
Premixed methane=air mixtures, on CD of the Third Joint Meeting
of the V.S. Sections of The Combustion Institute. The Combustion
Institute, Chicago, IL.
Ono, S., & Wakuri, Y. (1977). An experimental study on the quenching of
#ame by narrow cylindrical passage. Bulletin of the JSME, 20(147),
1191–1198.
Raimondeau, S., Norton, D., Vlachos, D. G., & Masel, R. I. (2002).
Modeling of high temperature microburners. Proceedings of the
Combustion Institute 29: 901–907 (2003).
Ronney, P. D. (2003). Analysis of non-adiabatic heat-recirculating
combustors. Combustion and Flame, (accepted).
Sitzki, L., Borer, K., Schuster, E., Ronney, P. D., & Wussow, S.
(2001). Combustion in microscale heat-recirculating burners. The
Third Asia-Paci?c Conference on Combustion, Seoul, Korea.
Uppal, A., Ray, W. H., & Poore, A. B. (1974). On the dynamic behavior
of continuous stirred tank reactors. Chemical Engineering Science, 29,
967–985.
Uppal, A., Ray, W. H., & Poore, A. B. (1976). The classi=cation of
the dynamic behavior of continuous stirred tank reactors-In#uence of
reactor residence time. Chemical Engineering Science, 31, 205–214.
Vlachos, D. G., Schmidt, L. D., & Aris, R. (1993). Ignition and extinction
of #ames near surfaces: Combustion of H2 in air. Combustion Flame,
95, 313–335.
Vlachos, D. G., Schmidt, L. D., & Aris, R. (1994). Ignition and extinction
of #ames near surfaces: Combustion of CH4 in air. A.I.Ch.E. Journal,
40(6), 1005–1017.
Westbrook, C. K., & Dryer, F. L. (1981). Simpli=ed reaction mechanisms
for the oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels in #ames. Combustion Science
and Technology, 27, 31–43.
Williams, F. A. (1991). Overview of Asymptotics for Methane Flames.
In M. D. Smooke (Ed.), Reduced kinetic mechanisms and asymptotic
approximations for methane-air >ames, Vol. 384 (pp. 68–85). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.