Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 36 (2017) 1759–1766

www.elsevier.com/locate/proci

MMC-LES simulations of turbulent piloted flames with

varying levels of inlet inhomogeneity
S. Galindo∗, F. Salehi, M.J. Cleary, A.R. Masri
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006 Australia
Received 4 December 2015; accepted 13 July 2016
Available online 5 October 2016

Abstract

This paper presents simulations of piloted turbulent flames where compositional inlet conditions vary
from homogeneous to inhomogeneous. The combustion model is sparse-Lagrangian multiple mapping con-
ditioning (MMC) coupled with large eddy simulation (LES). This is a first attempt using MMC-LES to model
flows where multi-modes of combustion may occur. The studied burner has two concentric tubes surrounded
by an annular pilot. The central tube carrying methane can slide within the outer air tube to induce com-
positional inhomogeneity at the burner exit plane. This leads to enhanced flame stability at some optimal
inner fuel tube recess distance. For comparison purposes, model results are presented firstly for a case with
compositional homogeneity at the inlet plane and secondly for the inhomogeneous case. The MMC-LES
model shows a very good agreement with the experiment for the homogeneous-inlet case where the preva-
lence of non-premixed combustion is observed. The inhomogeneous-inlet case features a transition from a
premixed flame structure close to the burner to a diffusion flame further downstream. It represents an ex-
treme test of the chosen MMC model which incorporates the enforcement of mixing locally in an extended
space comprised of the LES reference mixture fraction and physical location. The computed results show a
fair agreement with the data close to the nozzle; closely approaching but not quite achieving the premixed
structure. The return to a broad, distributed diffusion flame away from the nozzle is, however, captured very
well.
© 2016 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Turbulent combustion; Partially premixed; Inhomogeneous inlets; MMC-LES

1. Introduction Navier Stokes (RANS)-based approaches to large

In recent years, there have been significant
advances in computing the structure of both
turbulent non-premixed and premixed flames [1].
With the advent of fast computers, the models and
codes have progressed from Reynolds-averaged
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: + 61 2 9345 0393.
E-mail address: sgal8842@uni.sydney.edu.au
(S. Galindo).
eddy simulations (LES) [2,3]. The employed com-
bustion models range from variants of the laminar
flamelet concept [4,5], to conditional moment
closure (CMC) [6] and conditional source term
estimation (CSE) models [7,8], and probability
density function (PDF) methods where either Eu-
lerian stochastic fields or Lagrangian Monte-Carlo
methods may be used [9,10]. While some of these
models, such as transported PDF methods, have
been derived with generality to address turbulent
reacting flows independent of the combustion

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2016.07.055
1540-7489 © 2016 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1760 S. Galindo et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 36 (2017) 1759–1766
mode, most implementations and associated sub-
models have focused on premixed or non-premixed
combustion alone. However, flames in practical
combustors typically transition across a broad
mixture fraction range leading to multiple modes
of combustion in the same flame. Development
of models for partially premixed and mixed-mode
flames is underway [8,11–17], and the present
paper is part of that process. A good platform for
validating such models is the Sydney piloted burner
with compositionally inhomogeneous inlets, which
can stabilise multi-mode flames co-existing within
the same jet [18,19]. This is a simple variant of
the standard piloted burner [20] which has already
formed a very effective platform to advance the
modelling of turbulence-chemistry interaction in
non-premixed flames [21].
The current study aims to test the validity of the
sparse-Lagrangian multiple mapping conditioning
model in the LES framework (MMC-LES) for
flames with inhomogeneous inlets and multi-mode
flame structures. MMC-LES has proven to be a
very affordable and accurate combustion model
for a range of non-premixed flames [22,23]. It uses
a Monte Carlo approach to solve the subfilter
PDF. Owing to the small number of stochastic
Pope particles used in the simulations, MMC-LES
requires a significantly reduced computational
effort relative to PDF methods with conventional
mixing models [22,24,25]. The model offers a
controlled mixing process with enforcement of
localness in an extended space comprised of a
reference mixture fraction and physical location.
While MMC-LES has been successfully applied
to various non-premixed flames, this is a first
attempt at modelling multi-mode conditions. A
homogenous case and an inhomogeneous case
are considered. In the latter the compositional
inhomogeneity is such that the mixture at the
interface between the jet and the pilot is close to
the stoichiometric mixture fraction so the flame
features a premixed structure close to the nozzle
and a transition to a non-premixed structure at
downstream locations. In generalised MMC, fluc-
tuations relative to the reference mixture fraction
manifold allow for modelling of conditional fluc-
tuations and some extent of premixing. We test the
extent to which this model can approach the fully
premixed structure close to the nozzle and capture
the return to non-premixed burning downstream.
2. Experimental conditions and the computational
model
2.1. Sydney piloted burner with inhomogeneous
inlet
A complete experimental data set has recently
been provided by the University of Sydney for a
series of piloted flames with variable inlet condi-
Fig. 1. a) Inhomogeneous inlets burner cutout and
b) blow-off velocity versus recess distance (Lr) (figure
adapted from [26]).
tions [26]. The experiments were performed using
the well-known Sydney piloted jet burner [20] mod-
ified to include two concentric tubes surrounded by
the pilot stream. The inner tube may be recessed
within the outer tubes to vary the degree of pre-
mixing between the two streams. A schematic of the
burner is shown in Fig. 1a and more details can be
found in Ref. [18,27]. The burner assembly is cen-
tred in a wind tunnel providing a uniform air co-
flow which is fixed at Uc = 15 m/s. Changes in the
conditions at the burner exit are achieved by vary-
ing the recess distance, Lr . At sufficiently large val-
ues of Lr , homogeneous, partially premixed condi-
tions are produced, while the non-premixed con-
dition prevails when both tubes are flush at the
burner exit plane. The burning mode for the flames
with inhomogeneous composition at the exit plane
will depend upon the equivalence ratio at the jet
edge encountered by the pilot. Figure 1b) presents
the blow-off velocity (Ubo ) versus recess distance at
conditions where the volumetric air to fuel ratio in
the inner tube and the annulus is VA /VF = 2 [26].
Abbreviation FJ refers to the condition where the
fuel is issued from the inner tube whereas the air is
carried by the outer tube. The reverse condition is
labelled FA. A five-gas pilot, labelled as 5GP, is em-
ployed in the experiments. The pilot fuel is a stoi-
chiometric mixture of acetylene, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen and carbon dioxide. The pilot has the same
C/H ratio and adiabatic flame temperature as the
methane/air mixture. As can be seen, the FJ and FA
cases have very different stability characteristics.
For the FJ configuration the optimal stability (max.
blow-off velocity) is obtained for Lr = 75 mm. In
contrast, the stability of the FA flames increases
slowly and monotonically with increasing Lr .
Two cases, FJ200-5GP-Lr300-59 and FJ200-
5GP-Lr75-80, are selected for simulation. Both are
indicated by the star symbols in Fig. 1b. The first
case with Lr = 300 mm has a compositionally ho-
mogeneous mixture at the burner exit whereas the
second case with Lr = 75 mm is inhomogeneous.
The bulk jet exit velocities are 59 and 80 m/s, re-
spectively, such that both flames are at 70% of the
blow-off velocity at that value of Lr . Herein, for
 S. Galindo et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 36 (2017) 1759–1766
convenience, flames H and I are used to refer
to the homogeneous and inhomogeneous cases,
respectively.
2.2. MMC-LES model
The main MMC-LES concepts are presented
here and complete details, including derivation
of the model equations, can be found in [22]. The
filtered continuity, velocity, pressure and reference
mixture fraction fields are simulated using the
Eulerian LES, whereas a stochastic Lagrangian
scheme is employed for the reactive scalar fields. In
the latter, stochastic differential equations (SDEs)
are solved for an ensemble of Pope particles which
represent the local sub-filter state of the composi-
tion, otherwise known as a filtered density function
(FDF) [1]. A mixing model is required to emulate
the unclosed conditional dissipation of subfilter
scalar variances. Subramaniam and Pope [28], in
discussing the principles of a good mixing model,
highlight localness and linearity and independence
as key requirements. Here, as in all previous MMC-
LES applications to date, the localness is enforced
in an extended space comprised of the reference
mixture fraction (simulated by the Eulerian LES)
and physical location. In non-premixed flames
localness in mixture fraction space implies a high
degree of localness in composition space. An
MMC model was recently developed specifically
for premixed combustion based on a distance-like
reference variable [29] but it has not yet been im-
plemented within LES. In the present flame cases,
we continue to use the mixture fraction reference
variable even for Flame I which exhibits premixed
burning near the pilot and a non-premixed struc-
ture over the remainder of the domain. Particles
are mixed in pairs with a timescale that is de-
termined from the local turbulence parameters,
determining the level of fluctuations relative to the
reference mixture fraction manifold. Thus, MMC-
LES has significant differences to both flamelet
and first order CMC models for which conditional
fluctuations are not directly considered. As is
shown below, this allows the MMC-LES model to
closely approximate the premixed structure.
Localness between mixing particle pairs is con-
trolled by the selection of characteristic physical
and reference mixture fraction scales, denoted as rm
and f m , respectively. In the present modelling both
parameters have global values. The optimal value
for f m is likely to be chemistry dependent with
different fuels exhibiting different reaction zone
thickness. For pure methane, f m = 0.02 is suggested
[22] while it was found that f m = 0.03 can provide
a better prediction for broader reaction zones such
as found in partially premixed methane-air flames
[23]. Here, we use f m = 0.03, while rm is calculated
according to the fractal gradient model of Cleary
and Klimenko [22].
1761
2.3. Numerical implementation
The MMC-LES model has been implemented
into a new solver called mmcFoam that is com-
patible with the open source, object orienteded
C++ OpenFOAM suite of solvers [30]. The new
sparse-Lagrangian MMC classes are coupled with
OpenFOAM’s existing low-Mach, compressible
LES solver with the standard Smagorinsky subgrid
model [31]. There is two-way coupling between the
LES and MMC so that the fields remain consistent.
The velocity, reference mixture fraction, pressure
and turbulence parameters computed by LES,
are interpolated at particle locations and used to
integrate particle movement followed by particle
mixing and reaction substeps. Density coupling is
achieved through an adaptation [22] of the equiv-
alent enthalpy method [32]. Additional equivalent
major species and sensible enthalpy transport
equations are solved on the LES solely for the
purpose of determining the filtered density. The
source terms in those equations are conditional
averages obtained from a mean-square minimisa-
tion of a local ensemble of particle mass fractions
relative to a library of precomputed flamelets.
Here, the library contains six flamelets computed
from laminar calculations with varying strain rates.
The ensemble is limited to those particles within
a so-called supercell containing multiple LES grid
cells (see below). Once the flamelet curve is selected
locally, the equivalent species conditional source
term is the flamelet source term corresponding to
the LES filtered mixture fraction. A relaxation time
is applied to the source term to ensure stability.
More details can be found in Ref. [22]. The multi-
mode flame produced above the inhomogeneous
burner (Flame I) can lead to numerical instabilities
in the LES due to jumping between the library
curves. Stable simulations were achieved using a
CFL number of 0.4 combined with a density cou-
pling using a relaxation time equal to 10 time steps
[22]. Simulations of Flame I were first run with
a non-premixed library curve and statistics were
obtained. Following that a premixed curve was
added to the library and no substantial changes in
the mixing field were observed.
The computational domain consists of a 3D
rectangular mesh that extends 50 jet diameters
axially and 10 jet diameters in both transverse di-
rections. The mesh consists of 1.4 million cells and
it is refined in the jet and pilot regions resulting in
a mesh size of 0.4 mm cubed near the centreline. In
the sparse-Lagrangian MMC, 1 particle per 8 Eu-
lerian LES cells (1 L/8E) is used. Particle number
control is associated with supercells consisting of
4 × 4 × 8 LES cells with an average of 16 particles
in each. The (1 L/8E) configuration is used based on
extensive validation in [22]. The supercells used for
particle control are also used for density coupling
as discussed above. For both flame cases, zero-
gradient pressure boundary conditions are applied
1762 S. Galindo et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 36 (2017) 1759–1766
Fig. 2. Radial profiles of mean and rms of mixture fraction, temperature and CO mass fraction for flame H. Axial location
is indicated at the top (x/D = 1, 5, 15, 20). Solid lines: simulations; squares: experiments.
at the inlets and fixed total pressure conditions at
the domain sides and outflows. Composition and
velocity boundary conditions differ between the
two cases. For Flame H, the composition at the
burner exit is homogeneous and the time-varying
velocity has a turbulence intensity of 8% and an in-
tegral length scale of 1/8th of the jet diameter. Both
values are found to give the correct jet breakup
location and subsequent scalar profiles along the
centreline. On the other hand, Flame I has an inho-
mogeneous composition at the exit plane. The cor-
related turbulent composition and velocity bound-
ary data set is generated a priori by performing
an LES simulation of the internal pipe flow in the
burner. Within the flames, chemical reaction rates
are calculated according to the DRM-22 reduced
kinetics scheme [33] which includes 22 reactive
species plus argon and nitrogen and 104 reactions.
All simulations were started and run until
they reached a statistically steady state and then
statistics were collected over a period of five flow
through times. After this point we continued the
simulations for another two flow through times
observing no significant difference to the results.
As a comparison of computational cost on an Intel
Core i7-4790 K @ 4 GHz x 8, for a simulated time
of 6.3 ms which approximately corresponds to one
flow through time for the homogeneous inlet case,
320 CPU hours were required for computation of
reacting flows while 94 CPU hours were required
for an equivalent non-reacting cold flow.
3. Results
Figure 2 shows radial profiles of the steady-state
mean and rms of mixture fraction, temperature
and CO mass fraction at various axial locations
for Flame H with the homogeneous inlet condi-
tions. There is a very good agreement between
the predicted and measured quantities near the
burner and up to x/D = 15. Although not shown
due to space limitations, predictions of CH4 ,
O2 , CO2 and H2 O show similar accuracy as the
temperature, and predictions of minor species
including H2 show similar accuracy as CO. The
effect of the pilot in the form of double-peak rms
profiles is evident in the near-burner region. At
x/D = 30, the simulations appear to under-predict
the jet spreading with the mean mixture fraction
at the centreline failing to decay as quickly as was
experimentally observed. The mixture fraction rms
is, however, reasonably well predicted throughout
the domain. Consistent with the mixture fraction
field, the model under-predicts the mean values
of temperature and CO mass fraction at x/D= 30
while their fluctuations are reasonably accurate.
Comparisons of mean measured and computed
radial profiles are shown in Fig. 3 for the more
challenging case Flame I with the inhomogeneous
inlet compositions. The computed mean mixture
fraction and temperature agreed well with the
experiment near the burner and up to x/D = 15.
Further downstream, the mean profile of mixture
 S. Galindo et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 36 (2017) 1759–1766
Fig. 3. Radial profiles of mean and rms of mixture fraction, temperature and CO mass fraction for flame I. Axial location
is indicated at the top (x/D = 1, 5, 15, 20). Solid lines: simulations; squares: experiments.
fraction is well predicted showing good decay of
centreline values as well as jet spread however the
level of extinction is over-predicted resulting in
lower mean temperatures. It is important to note
that although the peak values of mixture fraction
rms are under-predicted, the location is well cap-
tured and this location correspond approximately
to location of the maximum gradient of the mean
profile. It can be seen that mean CO values are
under-predicted in the most part of the flame.
In order to examine the multi-mode flame struc-
ture in detail, we now consider instantaneous and
mean and rms quantities in mixture fraction space.
Figure 4 shows measured and computed scatter
plots for temperature versus mixture fraction for
both flames at x/D = 1, 5 and 15. For Flame H
shown in Fig. 4a, the dominant diffusion flame
structure is clearly evident and as expected based
on past experience with similar flames [23] the
MMC-LES performs very well. At x/D = 1 and 5
the flame appears to be close to chemical equilib-
rium, displaying a flamelet-like structure which is
easily captured by the model even with a sparse
distribution of Pope particles due to the enforce-
ment of mixing localness in the reference mixture
fraction space. A small degree of local extinction
is detected downstream of the exit plane between
x/D = 10 and x/D = 15 and the MMC-LES model
also reproduces these features very well. Further
downstream (not shown due to space limitations)
1763
the flame returns to a fully-burning state. MMC-
LES captures this quite well although the exact
location of reignition is a little further downstream
than in the experiments. As an aside, the dual rich-
side branch observed in the experimental data at
x/D = 1 is due to asymmetry caused by difficulties
in perfectly aligning the inner tube in the burner.
The scatter plots for Flame I shown in Fig. 4b
reveal a very different flame structure, especially
in the near-nozzle region where the inhomogeneity
of the burner exit composition produces mixtures
close to the stoichiometric mixture fraction. A pre-
mixed mode is observed in the experimental data
at the interface between the main jet and the pilot
characterised by a steep increase in temperature
from cold unburned to hot burned conditions.
On the lean side of stoichiometric at x/D = 1,
corresponding to the outer pilot region, a non-
premixed structure occurs. The MMC-LES closely
approaches the premixed mode of combustion at
x/D = 1 although the finite slope in the temperature
scatter indicates that the non-premixed structure
remains albeit with most of the heat release oc-
curring in a very narrow band on the rich side of
stoichiometry. This behaviour is a consequence
of the mixture fraction dependence of the MMC
mixing model. Downstream of x/D = 1, the flame
transitions from the premixed to the diffusion
mode and by x/D = 5 diffusion burning is evident
in the data although there are some remnants of
1764 S. Galindo et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 36 (2017) 1759–1766
Fig. 4. Scatter plots of temperature versus mixture fraction for cases a) Flame H and b) Flame I.
premixed fluid samples. Calculations reproduce
these trends but slightly over-predict the rate of
broadening of the reaction zone at this location.
At x/D = 15 where the flame has completed the
transition to a non-premixed structure, the simula-
tions are in good agreement with the experiments
albeit with a bit less conditional scatter.
Figure 5a presents conditional means and rms
for the temperature and the mass fraction of CO at
various axial locations for flame H. The computed
conditional mean and conditional rms of tempera-
ture are in excellent agreement with the experiment
while the MMC-LES model under-predicts condi-
tional mean mass fraction of CO close to the exit
plane. Although not shown, a similar discrepancy
is observed for hydrogen while the agreement for
major species such as carbon dioxide and water is
adequate. A simulation performed using the GRI-3
mechanism containing 34 species and 219 reactions
(NOx excluded) [34] has shown that the more de-
tailed chemistry only marginally improved the com-
puted CO mass fraction. It is worth noting that the
thickness of mixing layers is slightly over-predicted
by the MMC-LES at the axial location close to the
exit plane. It is evident from the profiles shown in
Fig. 2 that the computed mixture fraction in the
shear layer is gently decreased while the experiment
shows a very steep gradient of mixture fraction.
Profiles of conditional mean and rms for
Flame I with inhomogeneous inlet are presented in
Fig. 5b. Consistent with the scatter plots, these
conditional profiles reveal that the MMC-LES
with a mixture fraction reference variable cannot
quite capture the premixed structure at x/D = 1,
instead showing a broader non-premixed zone of
reaction at near stoichiometry. However, accuracy
improves further downstream where the burning
mode transitions to non-premixed combustion.
The computed rms of temperature and CO near
stoichiometric mixture fraction at x/D = 1 are
under predicted and this is consistent with the
observed scatter were fluid samples do not extend
from fresh gases to burnt gases. This also reflects
that in the mixing operation Pope particles could
be mixing without passing through the premixed
front. The slightly over-predicted mean tempera-
ture with under-precdicted rms values at x/D = 15
are consistent with the reduced scatter in the model
results at that location as shown in Fig. 4b.
It is evident that a specific premixed MMC
model is needed to reproduce the extent of premix-
ing observed in the inhomogeneous case Flame I.
The model by Sundaram et al. [29], which replaces
the reference mixture fraction by a distance-like ref-
erence variable should capture the premixed flame
structure, although LES requires a method for
locating the flame surface. Alternative approaches
based on a reaction progress variable have been
considered in MMC of homogeneous turbulence
[35] and may be used in the current flames as well,
 S. Galindo et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 36 (2017) 1759–1766
Fig. 5. Conditional mean and rms of temperature and CO mass fraction for a) Flame H and b) Flame I. Solid lines:
computed values; squares: experiments.
although the need to model the progress variable
source term may be a complicating factor.
4. Conclusions
Turbulent piloted flames with both homoge-
neous and inhomogeneous inlet compositions have
been simulated using MMC-LES. The predictions
for the homogenous inlet case, where non-premixed
flame structures are dominant, are in good agree-
ment with the experiments although the jet spread
is under-predicted far downstream. The inhomo-
geneous inlet case with mixed-mode combustion
represents an extreme test for the model. The in-
homogeneity is evident in the calculations, and
while the premixed structure near the nozzle is ap-
proached it is not fully captured with a narrow non-
premixed flame persisting. The return to a broad
non-premixed flame structure at downstream lo-
cations is very well captured. These results, while
promising, reflect the need to incorporate a specific
premixed MMC model. A number of options were
briefly discussed and these will be pursued in the
future.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Australian Re-
search Council and the Colombian Administrative
1765
Department of Science, Technology and Innova-
tion – COLCIENCIAS.
References
[1] H. Pitsch, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 38 (2006) 453–482.
[2] T. Poinsot, D. Veynante, Theoretical and Numerical
Combustion, R.T. Edwards, Inc., 2005.
[3] R.W. Bilger, S.B. Pope, K.N.C. Bray, J.F. Driscoll,
Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005) 21–42.
[4] N. Peters, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 10 (1984)
319–339.
[5] H. Pitsch, M. Chen, N. Peters, Symp. (Int.) Combust.
27 (1998) 1057–1064.
[6] A.Y. Klimenko, R.W. Bilger, Prog. Energy Combust.
Sci. 25 (1999) 595–687.
[7] H. Steiner, W.K. Bushe, Phys. Fluids 13 (2001)
754–769.
[8] D. Dovizio, J.W. Labahn, C.B. Devaud, Combust.
Flame 162 (2015) 1976–1986.
[9] S.B. Pope, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 11 (1985)
119–192.
[10] W.P. Jones, S. Navarro-Martinez, Combust. Flame
150 (2007) 170–187.
[11] M. Chen, M. Herrmann, N. Peters, Proc. Combust.
Inst. 28 (2000) 167–174.
[12] P. Domingo, L. Vervisch, K. Bray, Combust. Theory
Model. 6 (2002) 529–551.
[13] Y.C. See, M. Ihme, Proc. Combust. Inst. 35 (2015)
1225–1234.
[14] P.-D. Nguyen, L. Vervisch, V. Subramanian,
P. Domingo, Combust. Flame 157 (2010) 43–61.
1766 S. Galindo et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 36 (2017) 1759–1766
[15] M. Hegetschweiler, C. Handwerk, P. Jenny, Combust.
Sci. Technol. 182 (2010) 480–490.
[16] E. Knudsen, H. Pitsch, Combust. Flame 159 (2012)
242–264.
[17] F. Cavallo Marincola, T. Ma, A.M. Kempf, Proc.
Combust. Inst. 34 (2013) 1307–1315.
[18] S. Meares, A.R. Masri, Combust. Flame 161 (2014)
484–495.
[19] S. Meares, V.N. Prasad, G. Magnotti, R.S. Bar-
low, A.R. Masri, Proc. Combust. Inst. 35 (2015)
1477–1484.
[20] A.R. Masri, R.W. Dibble, R.S. Barlow, Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 22 (1996) 307–362.
[21] TNF Workshop, Available at http://www.sandia.gov/
TNF/abstract.
[22] M.J. Cleary, A.Y. Klimenko, Phys. Fluids 23 (2011)
115102.
[23] Y. Ge, M.J. Cleary, A.Y. Klimenko, Proc. Combust.
Inst. 34 (2013) 1325–1332.
[24] J. Xu, S.B. Pope, Combust. Flame 123 (2000)
281–307.
[25] R.R. Cao, S.B. Pope, A.R. Masri, Combust. Flame
142 (2005) 438–453.
[26] A.R. Masri, Available at http://web.aeromech.usyd.
edu.au/thermofluids/database.php.
[27] R.S. Barlow, S. Meares, G. Magnotti, H. Cutcher,
A.R. Masri, Combust. Flame 162 (2015) 3516–3540.
[28] S. Subramaniam, S.B. Pope, Combust. Flame 115
(1998) 487–514.
[29] B. Sundaram, A.Y. Klimenko, M.J. Cleary, U. Maas,
Proc. Combust. Inst. 35 (2015) 1517–1525.
[30] H.G. Weller, G. Tabor, H. Jasak, C. Fureby, Comput.
Phys. 12 (1998) 620–631.
[31] J. Smagorinsky, Mon. Weather Rev. 91 (1963)
99–164.
[32] M. Muradoglu, S.B. Pope, D.A. Caughey, J. Comput.
Phys. 172 (2001) 841–878.
[33] A. Kazakov, M. Frenklach, DRM22, Available at
http://www.me.berkeley.edu/drm/.
[34] G.P. Smith, D.M. Golden, M. Franklach, et al.,
Available at http://www.me.berkeley.edu/gri_mech/.
[35] A. Kronenburg, M.J. Cleary, Combust. Flame 155
(2008) 215–231.