## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**Annual Research Briefs 2010
**

275

Large-eddy simulation of stratiﬁed combustion

By A. Roux AND H. Pitsch

1. Motivation and objective

Combustion under stratiﬁed conditions appears in many systems: the simplest example

is unconﬁned premixed ﬂames, where fuel mixes with air at the outer shear layer leading

to a reduced equivalence ratio and ﬂame extinction (Boehm et al. 2010), but a more

practical example is gas turbines where evaporating fuel may have not enough time to

be perfectly premixed with air before burning. Stratiﬁed burning may occur in a variety

of forms, and the most basic condition used to characterize these forms is the presence

of stoichiometric fuel and air mixtures. If stoichiometric conditions can be observed in a

ﬂow, such as in the classical canonical edge ﬂames (Favier & Vervisch 2001; Domingo et al.

2002), the tribrachial ﬂame structure gathers both premixed and non-premixed regimes.

On the other hand, both the lean-lean combustion, used to reduce NO

X

emissions (Besson

et al. 2000; Zhao et al. 1999), and rich-rich (Barlow et al. 2009) stratiﬁcation conditions

remain in the premixed regime but might show deviations from a classical ﬂamelet-type

description.

Direct Numerical Simulations (DNS) and Large-Eddy Simulations (LES) have stressed

the changes in heat release and burning velocity occur for instance when a ﬂame prop-

agates through a non-homogeneous mixture. Although current models account for these

eﬀects in a basic way, several questions can be raised regarding whether the accuracy

of current approaches is suﬃcient (Haworth et al. 2000; Jimenez et al. 2002; Pires Da

Cruz et al. 2000). Anselmo-Filho et al. (2009) have shown that stratiﬁcation increases

the ﬂame surface density in comparison to a perfectly premixed case. Despite these dif-

ferences and the broad range of applications, until recently, the focus has been on only

canonical perfectly premixed or non-premixed conditions where prior to reactions, re-

actants are either perfectly premixed or completely segregated. Experimentally, only a

few experiments have been dedicated to study stratiﬁcation eﬀects (Besson et al. 2000;

Anselmo-Filho et al. 2009; Seﬀrin et al. 2010; Boehm et al. 2010) and validate numerical

models used to simulate turbulent combustion.

The objective of this study is to assess how correctly the multi-regime approach de-

veloped by Knudsen et al. (2010) and, particularly, the G-equation model coupled with a

transported progress variable, capture stratiﬁcation eﬀects. The focus here will be on ve-

locity and temperature. The chosen burner is relevant for aircraft combustors in that new

low-pollutant engine designs increasingly call for some premixed burning supported by a

more stable pilot ﬂame. In the present work, two diﬀerent simulations will be compared,

a stratiﬁed case and the corresponding fully premixed one with no shear. The paper is

organized as follows. Section 2 presents the conﬁguration of interest, Sec. 3 recalls the

model used to describe premixed combustion and ﬁnally, results are analyzed in Sec. 4.

2. Experimental setup

The conﬁguration of interest corresponds to the Darmstadt experimental stratiﬁed

burner (TSF) studied by Seﬀrin et al. (2010) and Boehm et al. (2010). Figure 1 presents

276 A. Roux and H. Pitsch

Figure 1. Simulation setup of the TSF burner. View of the four injection streams.

Figure 2. Central premixed pilot tube with the ﬂame-holder: its position is adjusted so that

the exit velocity proﬁle is as ﬂat as possible and close to the bulk velocity of slot 1 to minimize

shear.

the computational domain. The TSF burner consists of three staged concentric tubes

surrounded by a low-velocity coﬂow. The inner diameters are 14.8, 37 and 60 mm, re-

spectively. The central tube is used as a premixed pilot. The methane-air ﬂame that

burns in the main combustion chamber is stabilized by a ﬂame-holder positioned 40 mm

upstream of the pilot exit as shown in Fig. 2.

The two outer annular slots are operated independantly, allowing for the investigation

of stratiﬁcation and/or shear eﬀects. Four speciﬁc cases with no shear are studied in the

present work, summarized in Table 1. The ﬁrst case A i2 corresponds to an iso-thermal

case and is used to validate whether velocity ﬂuctuations are correctly reproduced by

the inﬂow simulation. The second case, labeled A i1, is non-reacting in the sense that

only the pilot is burning. This case is used to validate the inlet proﬁle used for the pilot

inlet stream. The G r is a fully premixed case where both the bulk velocities and the

equivalence ratios of pipes 1 and 2 are identical. Finally, the equivalence ratio of pipe 2 is

decreased to 0.6 for the case A r to investigate stratiﬁcation eﬀects. Note that the bulk

velocity given for the pilot corresponds to a velocity taken upstream of the ﬂame-holder,

in unburnt gas. The corresponding bulk velocity at the exit of the pilot is 10 m/s.

Pictures of the mean ﬂame brush studied by Seﬀrin et al. (2010) are presented in Fig. 3.

The two conﬁgurations of interest, A and G, exhibit diﬀerent behavior: the ﬂame opening

angles diﬀers. Both ﬂames qualitatively have the same appearance at the beginning until

the ﬂame reaches the zone where the mixture fraction is leaner for case A. The angle is

then reduced for the stratiﬁed case because of the lower ﬂame speed.

LES of stratiﬁed combustion 277

Name Pilot Slot 1 Slot 2 Coﬂow

U

bulk

φ U

bulk

φ U

bulk

φ U

bulk

φ

A i2 10 m/s 0.0 10 m/s 0.0 10 m/s 0.0 0.1 m/s 0.0

A i1 1 m/s 0.9 10 m/s 0.0 10 m/s 0.0 0.1 m/s 0.0

G r 1 m/s 0.9 10 m/s 0.9 10 m/s 0.9 0.1 m/s 0.0

A r 1 m/s 0.9 10 m/s 0.9 10 m/s 0.6 0.1 m/s 0.0

Table 1. List of ﬂow conditions simulated by LES of the three investigated cases: bulk velocity

and equivalence ratio. Note that the bulk velocity in the pilot is given at its exit and thus may

correspond to burnt gases.

Figure 3. Photographs of the two studied conﬁgurations, from Seﬀrin et al. (2010). Left:

stratiﬁed ﬂame and right: corresponding premixed one.

3. Physical and numerical model

3.1. Numerical setup

The conﬁguration is simulated using a structured ﬁnite-diﬀerence code (Desjardins et al.

2008) with a low Mach number limit and is second order accurate in both space and

time. A third-order accurate WENO scheme is used for scalar advection. The temporal

integration is done using a semi-implicit Crank-Nicolson scheme. A structured grid in

cylindrical coordinates with 408 × 168 × 64 points in the axial, radial and azimuthal

directions, respectively, is used. The mesh is reﬁned in the zone of interest: the cell width

is ∆

x

=1 mm close to the injector (axial location between the exit of the pilot and 200

mm downstream) and is then stretched. The grid is thus composed of 4.4 ×10

6

points.

For practical reasons, the entire set-up is computed by LES using multiple precursor

simulations. First, three turbulent pipe velocity proﬁles are generated corresponding to

the three slots of the TSF burner. Two of them feed the two outer pipes 1 and 2. The

last proﬁle is used as an inﬂow condition to generate the velocity proﬁles at the exit of

278 A. Roux and H. Pitsch

the central pilot tube downstream of the ﬂame-holder where the ﬁne geometric details

cannot be included in the main simulation without increasing the size of the grid. The

domain that is used for the main combustor LES begins 5 mm before the exit of slot 2.

This allows the inﬂow proﬁles to adapt to the mesh.

3.2. Combustion modeling

In the thin reaction zone regime of premixed combustion, the premixed ﬂame front is

smaller than the grid size. Depicting chemistry using a transported progress variable ¯c

consequently leads to numerical diﬃculties at the ﬂame front where the progress vari-

able proﬁle becomes very under-resolved. Additional modeling is therefore needed to

accurately describe the ﬂame propagation speed. This modeling is introduced by solving

an additional equation for a level set function G, deﬁning the evolution of an interface

associated with the ﬂame front as used by Knudsen et al. (2010):

∂

ˆ

G

∂t

+ ¯ v∇

ˆ

G = −

ρ

u

¯ ρ

Vn · ∇

ˆ

G, (3.1)

where t is the time, ¯ v the Favre-ﬁltered velocity, and V the turbulent propagation speed

of a temperature iso-surface in the ﬂame that includes the laminar burning velocity and

the front propagation caused by diﬀusion in high curvature regions.

The combustion model couples the level set function and a classical transported progress

variable ¯c by evaluating a weighted progress variable such as

¯ c

M

= ¯ c +ξ

_

ˆ

G, ∆, ∆

_

×

_

¯ c

G

_

ˆ

G, ∆

_

− ¯ c

_

. (3.2)

This mixed expression is a model describing the progress variable ﬁeld in the vicinity

of the ﬂame through the use of ¯ c

G

, and the ﬁeld outside of this region using ¯c. The weight

ξ reads

ξ

_

ˆ

G, ∆, ∆

_

=

(∆

)

1/4

_

(∆

)

2

+ ∆

2

_

1/8

×exp

_

_

_−6

_

ˆ

G −G

0

_

2

_

(∆

)

2

+ ∆

2

_

1/8

_

_

_. (3.3)

G

0

stands for the value of the level set function in the inner layer of the ﬂame. It is

here assumed that the G = G

0

iso-surface corresponds to half of the progress variable

maximum value, although it is known that the heat release maximum value occurs for

a higher value of the progress variable. ∆

**stands for the width where the level-set is
**

trusted in the simulation. c

G

has to be independent from these two variable as much as

possible. The model for this scalar that describes how the progress variable depends on

a distance coordinate in an unﬁltered sense is deﬁned as

c

G

:= c|G = G

0

=

_

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

_

0 ∀G < −δ

l

cmax

δ

l

×G +

cmax

2

∀ −

δ

l

2

< G ≤ G

2

c3−c2

G3−G2

×(G −G

3

) +c

3

∀G

2

< G ≤ G

3

c

max

∀G > G

3

, (3.4)

where

LES of stratiﬁed combustion 279

c

max

:= c|

G=∞

G

2

:=

δ

l

2

×

_

c|

G=δ

l

/2

−

cmax

2

_

C

2

:=

cmax

G2+δ

l

/2

×G

2

+

cmax

2

G

3

:= G|

c=c3

(3.5)

δ

l

is the ﬂame width. The source term reads

˙ ω

C

(¯c

M

) =

_

˙ ω

C

(c).δ(c −¯c

M

)dc. (3.6)

Finally, this procedure ensures that the resolved part of the turbulent mixing is well-

described througout the use of the transported progress variable while the tracking of

the ﬂame is ensured at the right speed.

3.3. Heat loss modeling

The eﬀects of radiative as well as wall convective heat transfers are of foremost im-

portance. Diﬀerent levels of approximation can be used to consider radiation. Thermal

radiation eﬀects can be directly integrated in the combustion model such as in the FPV

model for non-premixed combustion developed by Ihme (2008). Other methods of treat-

ing radiation include approaches such as Discrete Ordinate Methods (DOM), ray tracking

methods or Monte Carlo simulations in a separate code. Note that coupling these meth-

ods to LES solvers is typically very computationally expensive (Desjardin & Frankel

1999; Gonalves dos Santos et al. 2008). A more cost-eﬀective approximation is to use a

thin gray gas model for radiation and to assume that each point has a direct view of

the cold surroundings (Barlow et al. 2001; Schmitt et al. 2007; Ihme 2008). Here this

optically thin approach is employed, and radiative heat transfer is accounted for by a

Stefan-Boltzmann law which depends on local gas composition.

Convective heat transfer is accounted for by a thermal wall-function boundary con-

dition imposing a prescribed temperature. The temperature in the walls of the main

injection port are set to be 300 K so that LES gas temperature matches experimental

measurements at the nozzle exit.

Note that coupling heat transfer with a look-up table would require an additional

dimension: i.e., tabulating along another direction, the enthalpy (Ribert et al. 2006).

However, the size of the diﬀerent look-up tables is a major issue due to the lack of

memory, especially when dealing with a multi-regime model requiring the use of three

diﬀerent tables. Diﬀerent methods such as the ones using the self-similar properties of

turbulent premixed ﬂames have recently emerged but require additional assumptions.

Another way to reduce the computational cost, the result of the dimension of the look-

up tables, has been studied by Singer & Pope (2004) by creating in-situ chemical tables,

i.e., tables that are optimized and extended during the computation. This is the so-called

In-Situ Adaptive Tabulation method (ISAT). Use of neural networks are another way to

improve the size of the look-up tables (Ihme 2008). In this work, another method is used

to lighten the table (Knudsen et al. 2010).

The enthalpy equation is transported but is not a new dimension of the table to spare

memory. Instead, it is here assumed that the progress variable source term ˙ ω

c

can be

modeled such as

˙ ω

c

(z, c) ≈ B(z). exp(−T

a

(z)/T(z, c)), (3.7)

280 A. Roux and H. Pitsch

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Correction of the source term to take into account enthalpy change as deﬁned by

Eq. 3.8. Right: φ = 0.6 and Left: φ = 1.0.

where B(z) is independent of the temperature. Note that this evolution is comparable

to the source term from a one-step chemistry approximation. T

a

is extracted from the

computation of the ﬂamelets and tabulated. An enthalpy scalar is solver for, and can be

then directly used to correct the tabulated source term. This assumed functional form of

the source term can be used to modify a source term from a tabulated chemistry database

in the following manner. First, temperature is calculated from the transported value by

assuming that gas composition is not changed by transfer. A corrected temperature that

matches the value of the transported enthalpy can thus be estimated (Cp are evaluated

using polynomial functions). Then, density is computed by correcting the tabulated one

with the ratio of the exponential functions (corrected over transported). Finally, the

corrected source term reads

˙ ω

corr

c

(z, c) = ˙ ω

tab

c

(z, c) ×

exp

_

−T

tab

a

/T

corr

_

exp (−T

tab

a

/T

tab

)

, (3.8)

where the superscript tab means that the quantity comes from the look-up table. Fig-

ure 4 shows the error introduced using this alternate way to describe heat losses. Three

diﬀerent ﬂamelets are computed using FlameMaster (Pitsch 1998) with the same mixture

fraction φ = 0.6 or φ = 1.0 but three diﬀerent enthalpies (assumed to remain constant

throughout the ﬂamelet). The enthalpy changes are induced by decreasing or increasing

the temperature of the cold gases. The enthalpy is either lower (case A), or higher (case

B) than T

0

, with a corresponding inlet temperature of 240, 400 and 320 K, respectively.

The black line T

0

is used as a reference state to tabulate the diﬀerent quantities of inter-

est. Then, the model from Eq. 3.8 is used to compute the source term at the two other

enthalpies using the temperature of the reference ﬂamelet. The result from FlameMaster

is denoted by the subscript FM and the corrected variable by MODEL. A good agree-

ment is found although the source term peak is slightly shifted toward the burned gases

for lower equivalence ratio.

The laminar burning velocity s

L

appears in the source term V of the G-equation,

Eq. 3.1. It also has to be corrected to take into account heat loss eﬀects and reproducing

the ﬂame lift-oﬀ. This correction is performed by noting that s

L

is proportional to the

square root of the pre-exponential factor B of Eq. 3.7. By considering that the correction

of the ratio of the exponential is included in the function B(z), the corrected ﬂame speed

reads

LES of stratiﬁed combustion 281

Figure 5. Correction of the ﬂame speed to take into account enthalpy change. Laminar ﬂame

speed versus equivalence ratio for ﬁve diﬀerent initial temperatures (Representing diﬀerent en-

thalpies). The ﬂamelets described by triangles are used to build the look-up tables. The four oth-

ers are constructed by changing the inlet temperature and keeping the composition unchanged.

Filled symbol: corrected speed from Eq. 3.9, and empty ones, FlameMaster.

s

corr

L

= s

tab

L

×

_

exp

_

−T

tab

a

/T

corr

_

exp (−T

tab

a

/T

tab

)

_

1/2

. (3.9)

Figure 5 shows the evolution of the laminar ﬂame speed versus the equivalence ratio

for ﬁve diﬀerent enthalpies coming from FlameMaster (empty symbols) and the corre-

sponding approximated value (ﬁlled symbols and line). Diﬀerences arise for high enthalpy

ﬂamelets. However, for the lower enthalpies that are considered in this work, a maximum

error of 15% is found and is considered to be acceptable.

3.4. Chemistry modeling

The progress variable is here deﬁned as the sum of CO, CO

2

, H

2

O and H

2

mass fractions.

The fuel is methane. A ﬂamelet database is generated using FlameMaster by representing

the ﬂame as an unstretched freely propagating premixed ﬂame with non-unity Lewis

numbers. The look-up table has three leading dimensions: the mixture fraction z, the

progress variable c, and the variance z

2

. It is discretized using 200 ×400 ×25 points.

4. Results

In this section, simulation results are presented and assessed against the experiment.

All time-averaged statistics were collected for a period of four ﬂow through times, based

on a bulk velocity of 10 m/s.

4.1. Non-reacting comparisons

Simulation of the isothermal case A i2 and the quasi non-reacting case A i1 are ﬁrst

performed to validate the applied inﬂow boundary conditions. Time-averaged velocity

statistics are shown in Fig. 6 where mean (a) and variance (b) values of the axial com-

ponent of the velocity vector are given. A very good agreement is found between the

282 A. Roux and H. Pitsch

40

30

20

10

0

R

a

d

i

u

s

[

m

m

]

10 5 0

Seffrin et al :

A_i1 A_i2

NGA :

A_i1 A_i2

40

30

20

10

0

R

a

d

i

u

s

[

m

m

]

4 3 2 1 0

Seffrin et al :

A_i1 A_i2

NGA :

A_i1 A_i2

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Mean and variance of axial velocity 1 mm downstream the exit of the pilot for cases

A i1 and A i2.

LES data and the experiment. The simulation captures the velocity ﬂuctuations accu-

rately. However, discrepancies arise at the shear layers between the inﬂow pipes where

more points could have been used to discretize the lips of the diﬀerent slots. Another

diﬀerence arises in the pilot for the A i2 case on the mean axial velocity: asymmetries

in the pilot ﬂow appear owing to a slight misalignment of the moveable ﬂame holder

in the experiments. This issue does not appear for the other reacting cases according to

the experimentalists. Indeed, hot gases have higher temperature and increased diﬀusivity

that smoothes the asymmetries. Experimental data sets are available for further axial

locations of z = 50 and z = 100 mm but are not given here. Very good agreement is also

found at these locations.

4.2. Reacting comparisons

Having validated the approach for the non-reacting cases, the LES is extended to the

reacting cases A r and G r. Figure 7 shows an instantaneous iso-surface of progress

variable Y

C

= 0.1. Two diﬀerent behaviors are seen; as the ﬂow moves downstream, the

hot gases expand radially faster for the G R case than for the stratiﬁed case. Figure 8

shows a detailed view of mixture fraction and temperature for the A r case close to the

injector in the region of interest. The maximum temperature is found to be 2090 K which

is 60 K below the adiabatic ﬂame temperature for an equivalence ratio of 0.9. For the G r

case, pockets of hot gas are expelled from the ﬂame core because of Kelvin-Helmholtz

instability at the outer shear layer where a high velocity shear is found. Contours of

mixture fraction allow localizing stratiﬁed regions. These show the ﬂame propagating

in regions of gradually leaner mixture fraction from the inner to the outer part of the

jet. Two diﬀerent zones can be distinguished. Between the pilot exit and around 30 mm

downstream, the shape is similar for both cases as the ﬂame is not yet burning toward

the leaner mixture coming from slot 2. This region particularly shows that the lift-oﬀ

is the same for both cases. Farther downstream, two diﬀerent opening ﬂame angles are

seen. The A r ﬂame angle is reduced compared to that in the fully-premixed case, as seen

in Fig. 3. Interestingly, the gradient of temperature locating the ﬂame front is mostly

perpendicular to the gradient of mixture fraction. However, at some points, a parallel

LES of stratiﬁed combustion 283

Figure 7. Instantaneous isosurface of progress variable YC = 10. Top half of image: A r case,

and, bottom half of image: G r case.

Figure 8. Instantaneous ﬁelds of iso-levels of mixture fraction and contours of temperature.

Left: G r case, and, right: A r case.

alignment appears that leads to a decreased heat release and temperature because of the

leaner mixture fraction met.

For a more quantitative validation, the diﬀerences between the two cases are now

studied and assessed against the experiment. Figures 9 to 12 show the evolution of the

mean and variance of axial and radial components of the velocity vector as a function

of the radial coordinate at six axial locations: z = 1 mm, z = 50 mm, z = 75 mm,

z = 100 mm, z = 125 mm and z = 200 mm. An overall good agreement is found on the

axial velocity. Note that at the outer shear layer, some discrepancies may exist because

of the lack of convergence of the results. Because the coﬂow velocity (0.1 m/s) is a

hundred times lower than the bulk velocity of the three diﬀerent pipes, i.e., U

bulk

= 10

m/s, statistics in the outer shear layers converge very slowly relative to the primary jets

statistics. The statistics have been acquired during four ﬂow through times where the

characteristic time-scale is based on the bulk velocity of these three pipes and not on

that of the coﬂow. Having a fully converged simulation is not adressed in this study.

A bump structure is seen until z = 50 mm because of the segregated inﬂow. Then the

presence of the ﬂame and the increased viscosity at high temperature smooth out this

eﬀect. The opening of the ﬂame in the radial direction seen in the radial velocity proﬁles

comes from the gas expansion. Because of non-adiabaticity eﬀects in the pilot, the ﬂame

284 A. Roux and H. Pitsch

Figure 9. Mean axial velocity proﬁles in [m.s

−1

] at six diﬀerent axial locations. Comparison

between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). Top: G r, and, bottom: A r cases.

Figure 10. Variance of axial velocity proﬁles in [m.s

−1

] at six diﬀerent axial locations. Com-

parison between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). Top: G r, and, bottom: A r

cases.

is detached from the exit of the pilot and the radial velocity proﬁles show a fairly good

prediction of its position in the numerical simulation. The levels of variance are also well

matched. However, a longer simulation seems to be required to have smoother second-

order statistics.

LES of stratiﬁed combustion 285

Figure 11. Mean radial velocity proﬁles in [m.s

−1

] at six diﬀerent axial locations. Comparison

between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). Top: G r, and, bottom: A r cases.

Figure 12. Variance of radial velocity proﬁles in [m.s

−1

] at six diﬀerent axial locations. Com-

parison between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). Top: G r, and, bottom: A r

cases.

Temperature predictions are plotted in Figs. 13 and 14. Experimental data sets are

taken from Boehm et al. (2010). The temperature in the pilot (r < 7.4 mm) is below

the adiabatic ﬂame temperature at around 1800 K. Farther downstream, additional heat

release increases the local temperature and forms a bump at the location of the ﬂame

286 A. Roux and H. Pitsch

Figure 13. Mean temperature proﬁles in [K] at six diﬀerent axial locations. Comparison

between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). Top: G r, and, bottom: A r cases.

brush. At the two ﬁnal downstream locations, increased mean temperature is found for

high r because large ﬂame cusps appear during the propagation of the ﬂame. Regarding

the variance of temperature, a good agreement is found for the magnitude, but the

proﬁles are slightly shifted toward the inner part of the jet. This could be explained by

the modeled turbulent ﬂame speed, which is responsible for the radial expansion of the

hot gases, being predicted as too small.

5. Conclusions and future work

In this work, the multi-regime ﬂamelet approach was used to perform Large-Eddy

Simulation (LES) of a stratiﬁed burner. This study focuses on understanding the limits

of the models used when dealing with stratiﬁcation. An experimental burner that has

been designed to look at lean premixed stratiﬁed combustion is used to validate the

model. Two diﬀerent reactive cases have been simulated, one a stratiﬁed ﬂame and an

equivalent fully premixed one. An overall good agreement is found for the time-averaged

velocity statistics and temperature.

The immediate future work includes NO

x

modeling. Indeed, stratiﬁcation is a com-

monly used way to reduce NO

x

emissions and comparing proﬁles of pollutants at the

exit of the burner for diﬀerent stratiﬁed/fully-premixed case would be of great interest.

Acknowledgments

Authors thank Dr. Ing. F. Seﬀrin and B. Boehm for providing the experimental data.

Support from CTR and funding from SAFRAN is acknowledged. Fruitful discussion with

Dr. Ed. Knudsen, Mr. C. Schmitt and Dr. T. Lederlin are gratefully acknowledged.

LES of stratiﬁed combustion 287

Figure 14. Variance of temperature proﬁles in [K] at six diﬀerent axial locations. Comparison

between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). Top: G r, and, bottom: A r cases.

REFERENCES

Anselmo-Filho, P., Hochgreb, S., Barlow, R. & Cant, R. 2009 Experimental

measurements of geometric properties of turbulent stratiﬁed ﬂames. Proc. Combust.

Inst. 32 (2), 1763 – 1770.

Barlow, R., Wang, G.-H., Anselmo-Filho, P., Sweeney, M. & Hochgreb, S.

2009 Application of raman/rayleigh/LIF diagnostics in turbulent stratiﬁed ﬂames.

Proc. Combust. Inst. 32 (1), 945 – 953.

Barlow, R. S., Karpetis, A. N., Frank, J. H. & Chen, J. Y. 2001 Scalar proﬁles

and no formation in laminar opposed-ﬂow partially premixed methane/air ﬂames.

Comb. Flame 127 (3), 2102 – 2118.

Besson, M., Bruel, P., Champion, J. & Deshaies, B. 2000 Experimental analysis

of combustion ﬂows developping over a plane-symmetric expansion. J. Thermophys.

Heat Transfer 14 (1), 59 – 67.

Boehm, B., Frank, J. & Dreizler, A. 2010 Temperature and mixing ﬁeld measure-

ments in stratiﬁed lean premixed turbulent ﬂames. Proc. Combust. Inst. In Press,

Corrected Proof, –.

Desjardin, P. E. & Frankel, S. H. 1999 Two-dimensional large eddy simulation of

soot formation in the near-ﬁeld of a strongly radiating nonpremixed acetylene-air

turbulent jet ﬂame. Comb. Flame 119 (1-2), 121 – 132.

Desjardins, O., Blanquart, G., Balarac, G. & Pitsch, H. 2008 High order con-

servative ﬁnite diﬀerence scheme for variable density low mach number turbulent

ﬂows. J. Comput. Phys. 227 (15), 7125–7159.

Domingo, P., Vervisch, L. & Bray, K. 2002 Partially premixed ﬂamelets in LES of

nonpremixed turbulent combustion. Combust. Theory Model. 6 (4), 529 – 551.

288 A. Roux and H. Pitsch

Favier, V. & Vervisch, L. 2001 Edge ﬂames and partially premixed combustion in

diﬀusion ﬂame quenching. Comb. Flame 125 (1-2), 788 – 803.

Gonalves dos Santos, R., Lecanu, M., Ducruix, S., Gicquel, O., Iacona, E. &

Veynante, D. 2008 Coupled large eddy simulations of turbulent combustion and

radiative heat transfer. Comb. Flame 152 (3), 387 – 400.

Haworth, D. C., Blint, R. J., Cuenot, B. & Poinsot, T. J. 2000 Numerical

simulation of turbulent propane-air combustion with nonhomogeneous reactants.

Comb. Flame 121 (3), 395 – 417.

Ihme, M., P. H. 2008 Modeling of radiation and nitric oxide formation in turbulent

nonpremixed ﬂames using a ﬂamelet/progress variable formulation. Phys. Fluids

20 (5).

Jimenez, C., Cuenot, B., Poinsot, T. & Haworth, D. 2002 Numerical simulation

and modeling for lean stratiﬁed propane-air ﬂames. Comb. Flame 128 (1-2), 1 – 21.

Knudsen, E., Kim, S. H. & Pitsch, H. 2010 An analysis of premixed ﬂamelet models

for large eddy simulation of turbulent combustion. Phys. Fluid In press.

Pires Da Cruz, A., Dean, A. & Grenda, J. 2000 A numerical study of the laminar

ﬂame speed of stratiﬁed methane/air ﬂames. Proc. Combust. Inst. 28 (2), 1925 –

1932.

Pitsch, H. 1998 Flamemaster, a c++ computer program for 0d combustion and 1d

laminar ﬂame calculations Available from http://www.stanford.edu/ hpitsch/.

Ribert, G., Gicquel, O., Darabiha, N. & Veynante, D. 2006 Tabulation of com-

plex chemistry based on self-similar behavior of laminar premixed ﬂames. Comb.

Flame 146 (4), 649 – 664.

Schmitt, P., Poinsot, T., Scghuermans, B. & Geigle, K. 2007 Large-eddy simula-

tion and experimental study of heat transfer, nitric oxide emissions and combustion

instability in a swirled turbulent high-pressure burner. J. Fluid Mech. 570, 17–46.

Seffrin, F., Fuest, F., Geyer, D. & Dreizler, A. 2010 Flow ﬁeld studies of a new

series of turbulent premixed stratiﬁed ﬂames. Comb. Flame 157 (2), 384 – 396.

Singer, M. & Pope, S. 2004 Exploiting isat to solve the reaction-diﬀusion equation.

Combust. Theory Model. 8 (2), 361 – 383.

Zhao, F., Lai, M. C. & Harrington, D. L. 1999 Automotive spark-ignited direct-

injection gasoline engines. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 25 (5), 437 – 562.

The two outer annular slots are operated independantly. The second case. Both ﬂames qualitatively have the same appearance at the beginning until the ﬂame reaches the zone where the mixture fraction is leaner for case A. The inner diameters are 14. A and G.8. Figure 2. The TSF burner consists of three staged concentric tubes surrounded by a low-velocity coﬂow. The angle is then reduced for the stratiﬁed case because of the lower ﬂame speed. The corresponding bulk velocity at the exit of the pilot is 10 m/s. Four speciﬁc cases with no shear are studied in the present work. labeled A i1. Pitsch Figure 1. . 3. The ﬁrst case A i2 corresponds to an iso-thermal case and is used to validate whether velocity ﬂuctuations are correctly reproduced by the inﬂow simulation. respectively. Note that the bulk velocity given for the pilot corresponds to a velocity taken upstream of the ﬂame-holder. Finally. in unburnt gas. summarized in Table 1. This case is used to validate the inlet proﬁle used for the pilot inlet stream. The G r is a fully premixed case where both the bulk velocities and the equivalence ratios of pipes 1 and 2 are identical. the equivalence ratio of pipe 2 is decreased to 0. The methane-air ﬂame that burns in the main combustion chamber is stabilized by a ﬂame-holder positioned 40 mm upstream of the pilot exit as shown in Fig.276 A. View of the four injection streams.6 for the case A r to investigate stratiﬁcation eﬀects. Simulation setup of the TSF burner. The two conﬁgurations of interest. Central premixed pilot tube with the ﬂame-holder: its position is adjusted so that the exit velocity proﬁle is as ﬂat as possible and close to the bulk velocity of slot 1 to minimize shear. the computational domain. exhibit diﬀerent behavior: the ﬂame opening angles diﬀers. Roux and H. 2. Pictures of the mean ﬂame brush studied by Seﬀrin et al. is non-reacting in the sense that only the pilot is burning. allowing for the investigation of stratiﬁcation and/or shear eﬀects. 37 and 60 mm. (2010) are presented in Fig. The central tube is used as a premixed pilot.

is used. For practical reasons. three turbulent pipe velocity proﬁles are generated corresponding to the three slots of the TSF burner.1 m/s m/s m/s m/s 0. Figure 3.0 0.1.9 10 G r 1 m/s 0. 2008) with a low Mach number limit and is second order accurate in both space and time. Left: stratiﬁed ﬂame and right: corresponding premixed one. Two of them feed the two outer pipes 1 and 2.9 10 Table 1.9 10 A r 1 m/s 0.9 Slot 2 Ubulk φ 10 10 10 10 m/s m/s m/s m/s 0. radial and azimuthal directions.9 0.9 0. Note that the bulk velocity in the pilot is given at its exit and thus may correspond to burnt gases. Numerical setup The conﬁguration is simulated using a structured ﬁnite-diﬀerence code (Desjardins et al.1 0.0 0. Photographs of the two studied conﬁgurations. The last proﬁle is used as an inﬂow condition to generate the velocity proﬁles at the exit of .0 0.1 0. The grid is thus composed of 4.0 0. First.4 × 106 points. List of ﬂow conditions simulated by LES of the three investigated cases: bulk velocity and equivalence ratio.0 10 A i1 1 m/s 0. the entire set-up is computed by LES using multiple precursor simulations. from Seﬀrin et al.0 0. respectively.0 0.0 A i2 10 m/s 0. (2010). The temporal integration is done using a semi-implicit Crank-Nicolson scheme. The mesh is reﬁned in the zone of interest: the cell width is ∆x =1 mm close to the injector (axial location between the exit of the pilot and 200 mm downstream) and is then stretched.6 Coﬂow Ubulk φ 0.0 0. 3. A third-order accurate WENO scheme is used for scalar advection. A structured grid in cylindrical coordinates with 408 × 168 × 64 points in the axial. Physical and numerical model 3.LES of stratiﬁed combustion 277 Name Pilot Ubulk φ Slot 1 Ubulk φ m/s m/s m/s m/s 0.1 0.

1) where t is the time. The model for this scalar that describes how the progress variable depends on a distance coordinate in an unﬁltered sense is deﬁned as 0 cmax cmax δl × G + 2 = c3 −c2 G3 −G2 × (G − G3 ) + c3 cmax ∀G < −δl ∀ − δl < G ≤ G 2 2 . and the ﬁeld outside of this region using c.4) where . ∆.2) This mixed expression is a model describing the progress variable ﬁeld in the vicinity of the ﬂame through the use of cG .3) G0 stands for the value of the level set function in the inner layer of the ﬂame.2. The combustion model couples the level set function and a classical transported progress variable c by evaluating a weighted progress variable such as ˆ cM = c + ξ G. (2010): ˆ ρu ∂G ˆ + v G = − Vn · ∂t ρ ¯ ˆ G. deﬁning the evolution of an interface associated with the ﬂame front as used by Knudsen et al. ∆ − c . The domain that is used for the main combustor LES begins 5 mm before the exit of slot 2. The weight ¯ ξ reads ˆ ξ G. This allows the inﬂow proﬁles to adapt to the mesh. It is here assumed that the G = G0 iso-surface corresponds to half of the progress variable maximum value. and V the turbulent propagation speed of a temperature iso-surface in the ﬂame that includes the laminar burning velocity and the front propagation caused by diﬀusion in high curvature regions. ∆ = (∆ ) 2 1/4 1/8 ˆ G − G0 (∆ ) + ∆2 2 2 1/8 (∆ ) + ∆2 × exp −6 . Roux and H. v the Favre-ﬁltered velocity. Pitsch the central pilot tube downstream of the ﬂame-holder where the ﬁne geometric details cannot be included in the main simulation without increasing the size of the grid. cG has to be independent from these two variable as much as possible.278 A. Additional modeling is therefore needed to accurately describe the ﬂame propagation speed. ∀G2 < G ≤ G3 ∀G > G3 cG := c|G = G0 (3. ∆ × cG G. 3. Depicting chemistry using a transported progress variable c consequently leads to numerical diﬃculties at the ﬂame front where the progress variable proﬁle becomes very under-resolved. ¯ ˆ (3. the premixed ﬂame front is smaller than the grid size. (3. This modeling is introduced by solving an additional equation for a level set function G. although it is known that the heat release maximum value occurs for a higher value of the progress variable. Combustion modeling In the thin reaction zone regime of premixed combustion. ∆ stands for the width where the level-set is trusted in the simulation. ∆. (3.

exp(−Ta (z)/T (z. i. it is here assumed that the progress variable source term ωc can be ˙ modeled such as ωc (z. Diﬀerent levels of approximation can be used to consider radiation. this procedure ensures that the resolved part of the turbulent mixing is welldescribed througout the use of the transported progress variable while the tracking of the ﬂame is ensured at the right speed. and radiative heat transfer is accounted for by a Stefan-Boltzmann law which depends on local gas composition. Heat loss modeling The eﬀects of radiative as well as wall convective heat transfers are of foremost importance.7) . Schmitt et al. The enthalpy equation is transported but is not a new dimension of the table to spare memory.LES of stratiﬁed combustion cmax G2 C2 G3 := c|G=∞ := δl × c|G=δl /2 − cmax 2 2 cmax := G2 +δl /2 × G2 + cmax 2 := G|c=c3 279 (3.δ(c − cM )dc.e. the enthalpy (Ribert et al. 2010).e. Another way to reduce the computational cost. c)). Diﬀerent methods such as the ones using the self-similar properties of turbulent premixed ﬂames have recently emerged but require additional assumptions. has been studied by Singer & Pope (2004) by creating in-situ chemical tables. ˙ (3. Thermal radiation eﬀects can be directly integrated in the combustion model such as in the FPV model for non-premixed combustion developed by Ihme (2008). 2008). Convective heat transfer is accounted for by a thermal wall-function boundary condition imposing a prescribed temperature. especially when dealing with a multi-regime model requiring the use of three diﬀerent tables. tables that are optimized and extended during the computation. ray tracking methods or Monte Carlo simulations in a separate code.6) Finally. Instead. ˙ (3. Other methods of treating radiation include approaches such as Discrete Ordinate Methods (DOM). 2001. the size of the diﬀerent look-up tables is a major issue due to the lack of memory. 2007. Ihme 2008). This is the so-called In-Situ Adaptive Tabulation method (ISAT). Note that coupling heat transfer with a look-up table would require an additional dimension: i. Use of neural networks are another way to improve the size of the look-up tables (Ihme 2008).5) δl is the ﬂame width. tabulating along another direction. 2006). 3. The source term reads ωC (cM ) = ˙ ωC (c)..3. another method is used to lighten the table (Knudsen et al. Note that coupling these methods to LES solvers is typically very computationally expensive (Desjardin & Frankel 1999. c) ≈ B(z). A more cost-eﬀective approximation is to use a thin gray gas model for radiation and to assume that each point has a direct view of the cold surroundings (Barlow et al. However. Gonalves dos Santos et al. The temperature in the walls of the main injection port are set to be 300 K so that LES gas temperature matches experimental measurements at the nozzle exit.. Here this optically thin approach is employed. the result of the dimension of the lookup tables. In this work.

The enthalpy is either lower (case A). This correction is performed by noting that sL is proportional to the square root of the pre-exponential factor B of Eq. 3. Ta is extracted from the computation of the ﬂamelets and tabulated. Correction of the source term to take into account enthalpy change as deﬁned by Eq. The black line T0 is used as a reference state to tabulate the diﬀerent quantities of interest. Three diﬀerent ﬂamelets are computed using FlameMaster (Pitsch 1998) with the same mixture fraction φ = 0.8) where the superscript tab means that the quantity comes from the look-up table. 3. Roux and H. The laminar burning velocity sL appears in the source term V of the G-equation.7. A corrected temperature that matches the value of the transported enthalpy can thus be estimated (Cp are evaluated using polynomial functions). the corrected ﬂame speed reads . Finally. the model from Eq. and can be then directly used to correct the tabulated source term. Note that this evolution is comparable to the source term from a one-step chemistry approximation. or higher (case B) than T0 . Pitsch (a) (b) Figure 4. the corrected source term reads ωc (z. The enthalpy changes are induced by decreasing or increasing the temperature of the cold gases. Figure 4 shows the error introduced using this alternate way to describe heat losses.8 is used to compute the source term at the two other enthalpies using the temperature of the reference ﬂamelet. density is computed by correcting the tabulated one with the ratio of the exponential functions (corrected over transported). respectively. c) × ˙ corr ˙ tab tab exp −Ta /T corr . Right: φ = 0. Then.0 but three diﬀerent enthalpies (assumed to remain constant throughout the ﬂamelet). Then.0.1. An enthalpy scalar is solver for. Eq. It also has to be corrected to take into account heat loss eﬀects and reproducing the ﬂame lift-oﬀ. 3. The result from FlameMaster is denoted by the subscript F M and the corrected variable by M ODEL.6 or φ = 1. This assumed functional form of the source term can be used to modify a source term from a tabulated chemistry database in the following manner.280 A. where B(z) is independent of the temperature. 400 and 320 K. tab exp (−Ta /T tab ) (3. 3.8.6 and Left: φ = 1. c) = ωc (z. By considering that the correction of the ratio of the exponential is included in the function B(z). with a corresponding inlet temperature of 240. First. A good agreement is found although the source term peak is slightly shifted toward the burned gases for lower equivalence ratio. temperature is calculated from the transported value by assuming that gas composition is not changed by transfer.

A very good agreement is found between the . CO2 . and empty ones. the progress variable c. (3. a maximum error of 15% is found and is considered to be acceptable. Laminar ﬂame speed versus equivalence ratio for ﬁve diﬀerent initial temperatures (Representing diﬀerent enthalpies). However. It is discretized using 200 × 400 × 25 points. based on a bulk velocity of 10 m/s. for the lower enthalpies that are considered in this work. H2 O and H2 mass fractions. 3. simulation results are presented and assessed against the experiment. 4. The ﬂamelets described by triangles are used to build the look-up tables.LES of stratiﬁed combustion 281 Figure 5. A ﬂamelet database is generated using FlameMaster by representing the ﬂame as an unstretched freely propagating premixed ﬂame with non-unity Lewis numbers. All time-averaged statistics were collected for a period of four ﬂow through times.9) Figure 5 shows the evolution of the laminar ﬂame speed versus the equivalence ratio for ﬁve diﬀerent enthalpies coming from FlameMaster (empty symbols) and the corresponding approximated value (ﬁlled symbols and line). Non-reacting comparisons Simulation of the isothermal case A i2 and the quasi non-reacting case A i1 are ﬁrst performed to validate the applied inﬂow boundary conditions. 4. Correction of the ﬂame speed to take into account enthalpy change. Results In this section. The look-up table has three leading dimensions: the mixture fraction z. FlameMaster.1. Time-averaged velocity statistics are shown in Fig. The fuel is methane. 3. and the variance z 2 . The four others are constructed by changing the inlet temperature and keeping the composition unchanged.9.4. scorr = stab × L L tab exp −Ta /T corr tab exp (−Ta /T tab ) 1/2 . Chemistry modeling The progress variable is here deﬁned as the sum of CO. Diﬀerences arise for high enthalpy ﬂamelets. 6 where mean (a) and variance (b) values of the axial component of the velocity vector are given. Filled symbol: corrected speed from Eq.

Between the pilot exit and around 30 mm downstream. Roux and H. The maximum temperature is found to be 2090 K which is 60 K below the adiabatic ﬂame temperature for an equivalence ratio of 0. Figure 7 shows an instantaneous iso-surface of progress variable YC = 0. the LES is extended to the reacting cases A r and G r.9. Experimental data sets are available for further axial locations of z = 50 and z = 100 mm but are not given here. Two diﬀerent zones can be distinguished.1. two diﬀerent opening ﬂame angles are seen. The simulation captures the velocity ﬂuctuations accurately. hot gases have higher temperature and increased diﬀusivity that smoothes the asymmetries. For the G r case. The A r ﬂame angle is reduced compared to that in the fully-premixed case. This region particularly shows that the lift-oﬀ is the same for both cases. However. the hot gases expand radially faster for the G R case than for the stratiﬁed case. Interestingly.282 40 Seffrin et al : A_i1 NGA : A_i1 A. as seen in Fig. pockets of hot gas are expelled from the ﬂame core because of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the outer shear layer where a high velocity shear is found. However. LES data and the experiment. Reacting comparisons Having validated the approach for the non-reacting cases. Pitsch A_i2 A_i2 30 Radius [mm] 40 Seffrin et al : A_i1 NGA : A_i1 A_i2 A_i2 30 Radius [mm] 20 20 10 10 0 0 5 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 (a) (b) Figure 6. the gradient of temperature locating the ﬂame front is mostly perpendicular to the gradient of mixture fraction. discrepancies arise at the shear layers between the inﬂow pipes where more points could have been used to discretize the lips of the diﬀerent slots. Two diﬀerent behaviors are seen. This issue does not appear for the other reacting cases according to the experimentalists. Indeed. the shape is similar for both cases as the ﬂame is not yet burning toward the leaner mixture coming from slot 2.2. Very good agreement is also found at these locations. Another diﬀerence arises in the pilot for the A i2 case on the mean axial velocity: asymmetries in the pilot ﬂow appear owing to a slight misalignment of the moveable ﬂame holder in the experiments. 3. Contours of mixture fraction allow localizing stratiﬁed regions. Mean and variance of axial velocity 1 mm downstream the exit of the pilot for cases A i1 and A i2. at some points. as the ﬂow moves downstream. 4. Farther downstream. a parallel . These show the ﬂame propagating in regions of gradually leaner mixture fraction from the inner to the outer part of the jet. Figure 8 shows a detailed view of mixture fraction and temperature for the A r case close to the injector in the region of interest.

z = 125 mm and z = 200 mm. Top half of image: A r case. the diﬀerences between the two cases are now studied and assessed against the experiment. z = 100 mm. right: A r case. An overall good agreement is found on the axial velocity.LES of stratiﬁed combustion 283 Figure 7. Because the coﬂow velocity (0. The opening of the ﬂame in the radial direction seen in the radial velocity proﬁles comes from the gas expansion. z = 50 mm. Figures 9 to 12 show the evolution of the mean and variance of axial and radial components of the velocity vector as a function of the radial coordinate at six axial locations: z = 1 mm. z = 75 mm. Because of non-adiabaticity eﬀects in the pilot. Instantaneous isosurface of progress variable YC = 10. Having a fully converged simulation is not adressed in this study. For a more quantitative validation. Ubulk = 10 m/s. Note that at the outer shear layer. i. Then the presence of the ﬂame and the increased viscosity at high temperature smooth out this eﬀect. and. Figure 8. and. statistics in the outer shear layers converge very slowly relative to the primary jets statistics. bottom half of image: G r case.e. Instantaneous ﬁelds of iso-levels of mixture fraction and contours of temperature.1 m/s) is a hundred times lower than the bulk velocity of the three diﬀerent pipes. Left: G r case. A bump structure is seen until z = 50 mm because of the segregated inﬂow. some discrepancies may exist because of the lack of convergence of the results. The statistics have been acquired during four ﬂow through times where the characteristic time-scale is based on the bulk velocity of these three pipes and not on that of the coﬂow.. alignment appears that leads to a decreased heat release and temperature because of the leaner mixture fraction met. the ﬂame .

Pitsch Figure 9.s−1 ] at six diﬀerent axial locations. The levels of variance are also well matched. Roux and H. Top: G r. Figure 10. Mean axial velocity proﬁles in [m.284 A. . and. Variance of axial velocity proﬁles in [m. However. bottom: A r cases. Top: G r. a longer simulation seems to be required to have smoother secondorder statistics. and. bottom: A r cases.s−1 ] at six diﬀerent axial locations. Comparison between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). is detached from the exit of the pilot and the radial velocity proﬁles show a fairly good prediction of its position in the numerical simulation. Comparison between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols).

bottom: A r cases. Temperature predictions are plotted in Figs. Mean radial velocity proﬁles in [m. Farther downstream. Comparison between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). Comparison between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). and.LES of stratiﬁed combustion 285 Figure 11. 13 and 14. Variance of radial velocity proﬁles in [m. The temperature in the pilot (r < 7. (2010). Figure 12. and. Top: G r.s−1 ] at six diﬀerent axial locations. additional heat release increases the local temperature and forms a bump at the location of the ﬂame . Experimental data sets are taken from Boehm et al. Top: G r.s−1 ] at six diﬀerent axial locations. bottom: A r cases.4 mm) is below the adiabatic ﬂame temperature at around 1800 K.

C. Ing. bottom: A r cases. The immediate future work includes NOx modeling. Fruitful discussion with Dr. stratiﬁcation is a commonly used way to reduce NOx emissions and comparing proﬁles of pollutants at the exit of the burner for diﬀerent stratiﬁed/fully-premixed case would be of great interest. An overall good agreement is found for the time-averaged velocity statistics and temperature. the multi-regime ﬂamelet approach was used to perform Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) of a stratiﬁed burner. being predicted as too small. Acknowledgments Authors thank Dr. Two diﬀerent reactive cases have been simulated. Knudsen. Comparison between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). but the proﬁles are slightly shifted toward the inner part of the jet. Schmitt and Dr. . Seﬀrin and B. a good agreement is found for the magnitude. Roux and H. Boehm for providing the experimental data. Indeed. T. Regarding the variance of temperature. This could be explained by the modeled turbulent ﬂame speed. This study focuses on understanding the limits of the models used when dealing with stratiﬁcation. which is responsible for the radial expansion of the hot gases. Conclusions and future work In this work. Top: G r. Lederlin are gratefully acknowledged. increased mean temperature is found for high r because large ﬂame cusps appear during the propagation of the ﬂame. and. Pitsch Figure 13. brush. one a stratiﬁed ﬂame and an equivalent fully premixed one. Support from CTR and funding from SAFRAN is acknowledged. Mean temperature proﬁles in [K] at six diﬀerent axial locations. Mr. An experimental burner that has been designed to look at lean premixed stratiﬁed combustion is used to validate the model. Ed. 5.286 A. At the two ﬁnal downstream locations. F.

& Pitsch. Inst. 2000 Experimental analysis of combustion ﬂows developping over a plane-symmetric expansion. R. G. Besson. Bruel. Comparison between computation (lines) and experiment (symbols). Combust. S. 32 (2). G. J. 2001 Scalar proﬁles and no formation in laminar opposed-ﬂow partially premixed methane/air ﬂames. Phys. H. P. 2010 Temperature and mixing ﬁeld measurements in stratiﬁed lean premixed turbulent ﬂames. Barlow. P. S. J. Flame 127 (3). Desjardins. Frank. A. M. Boehm. Balarac. Inst. M. O. Comb. 2009 Application of raman/rayleigh/LIF diagnostics in turbulent stratiﬁed ﬂames. J.. Karpetis. Variance of temperature proﬁles in [K] at six diﬀerent axial locations. P. Domingo. J. Top: G r. J. Theory Model. P.. In Press. Barlow. Corrected Proof. & Hochgreb. Inst. Hochgreb. Comput. S. 32 (1). Proc. L. . Barlow. 6 (4).. Proc. N. Blanquart. 945 – 953. Comb. 1763 – 1770.. 1999 Two-dimensional large eddy simulation of soot formation in the near-ﬁeld of a strongly radiating nonpremixed acetylene-air turbulent jet ﬂame.. S. & Cant. Combust. J.. and. Y..LES of stratiﬁed combustion 287 Figure 14. 2102 – 2118. 59 – 67. Anselmo-Filho.. G. –. 2002 Partially premixed ﬂamelets in LES of nonpremixed turbulent combustion. REFERENCES Anselmo-Filho. H. B. Sweeney. & Deshaies. Heat Transfer 14 (1). A. 227 (15). & Frankel. Combust. bottom: A r cases.. 2009 Experimental measurements of geometric properties of turbulent stratiﬁed ﬂames.. B. Flame 119 (1-2). & Chen. Champion. H. 121 – 132.. Thermophys. Desjardin. Vervisch. R. Proc. E. R. 529 – 551.-H. K. & Dreizler. Frank. P.. Combust. Wang. R. 2008 High order conservative ﬁnite diﬀerence scheme for variable density low mach number turbulent ﬂows. & Bray.. 7125–7159.

Seffrin. J. Pitsch. 788 – 803. & Dreizler. 1999 Automotive spark-ignited directinjection gasoline engines. 2000 A numerical study of the laminar ﬂame speed of stratiﬁed methane/air ﬂames. Comb. Prog. Zhao. 570. B. Phys.. Gicquel. Ihme.. J. Combust. H. H. P. M. J. Comb. Poinsot. M. nitric oxide emissions and combustion instability in a swirled turbulent high-pressure burner. H. Scghuermans. Haworth. J. 437 – 562. Energy Combust. A. N.. 8 (2). M. F. 25 (5).. A... 2010 Flow ﬁeld studies of a new series of turbulent premixed stratiﬁed ﬂames. & Veynante. 2010 An analysis of premixed ﬂamelet models for large eddy simulation of turbulent combustion. Jimenez.. D. 1998 Flamemaster. Inst. D. K. R. F. Poinsot. Gonalves dos Santos. Flame 125 (1-2).. Roux and H. V. Cuenot. C. M. T. 361 – 383. Phys. Geyer. 387 – 400. C. Sci. Fluids 20 (5). G. Comb.288 A. Ducruix. H. Lai. Ribert. S.. D.. T. Flame 121 (3). Fluid Mech. 2001 Edge ﬂames and partially premixed combustion in diﬀusion ﬂame quenching. Flame 157 (2). E. Singer. D. 2008 Coupled large eddy simulations of turbulent combustion and radiative heat transfer. Flame 152 (3). A. R. 2004 Exploiting isat to solve the reaction-diﬀusion equation. . & Pitsch. Gicquel. Fluid In press. 17–46. L.stanford.. & Poinsot. Kim. S. Pitsch Favier. B. Dean. & Veynante. 2008 Modeling of radiation and nitric oxide formation in turbulent nonpremixed ﬂames using a ﬂamelet/progress variable formulation. & Geigle. 2007 Large-eddy simulation and experimental study of heat transfer. Flame 128 (1-2).. 2002 Numerical simulation and modeling for lean stratiﬁed propane-air ﬂames. 28 (2). 395 – 417. & Grenda. D.. 1 – 21. 2000 Numerical simulation of turbulent propane-air combustion with nonhomogeneous reactants. P. Comb. C. Darabiha.. 384 – 396. Cuenot. L.. Knudsen. 649 – 664. Comb.. Theory Model. & Harrington. S. O. E. B. O. 1925 – 1932. a c++ computer program for 0d combustion and 1d laminar ﬂame calculations Available from http://www. Lecanu.. & Vervisch. T. 2006 Tabulation of complex chemistry based on self-similar behavior of laminar premixed ﬂames. Comb. Schmitt. Blint. Fuest. Combust. F.edu/ hpitsch/. Proc. D. Iacona. Pires Da Cruz. & Haworth.. & Pope. Flame 146 (4).

- 3dfluidflow
- A study on numerical analysis of the resistance spot welding process
- Chemical Equilibrium and Dissociation
- Calculation Sheet
- Cylinder air/fuel ratio estimation using net heat release data
- HSG-400 Product Sheet
- Statements and Reasoning
- 02 - Porous Burners for Lean-burn Applications
- CF_franzelliRiber
- NETL0G_JUL2013
- 1B2P
- Exergy h2.Diesel
- An Experimental Based ANN Approach in Mapping Performance emission
- Gasoline Engine
- Adv Thermo 2017 Chap 1(1)
- WMG10-1AZM
- ME471_Instructor_Notes.pdf
- 28888.pdf
- Emulsion Fuel Technology in Combustion Furnaces
- Consequenc Assessment Model for Incidents Involving Release From LNG Carrier
- Callen Errors
- Abstract 2
- Burners
- CH05 Firefighting
- IEC 60695-2 Test Methods
- Effect of Water Depth and Still Orientation on Productivity of Passive Solar Still
- Energy Audit Instruments
- Reactor Design Sample Exam
- Boiler Short Guide
- Health Department No-Burn Ordinance

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading