Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276

www.elsevier.com/locate/combustflame

Flame acceleration in the early stages of burning in tubes

Vitaly Bychkov a, , Vyacheslav Akkerman a,b , Gordon Fru a ,
Arkady Petchenko a , Lars-Erik Eriksson c
a Institute of Physics, Ume University, S-901 87 Ume, Sweden
b Nuclear Safety Institute (IBRAE) of Russian Academy of Sciences, B. Tulskaya 52, 115191 Moscow, Russia
c Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gteborg, Sweden

Received 20 March 2006; received in revised form 13 December 2006; accepted 18 January 2007

Abstract
Acceleration of premixed laminar flames in the early stages of burning in long tubes is considered. The accel-
eration mechanism was suggested earlier by Clanet and Searby [Combust. Flame 105 (1996) 225]. Acceleration
happens due to the initial ignition geometry at the tube axis when a flame develops to a finger-shaped front, with
surface area growing exponentially in time. Flame surface area grows quite fast but only for a short time. The
analytical theory of flame acceleration is developed, which determines the growth rate, the total acceleration time,
and the maximal increase of the flame surface area. Direct numerical simulations of the process are performed for
the complete set of combustion equations. The simulations results and the theory are in good agreement with the
previous experiments. The numerical simulations also demonstrate flame deceleration, which follows acceleration,
and the so-called tulip flames.
2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Combustion Institute.

Keywords: Premixed flames; Flame acceleration; Tulip flames; Direct numerical simulations

1. Introduction turbulent burning [714] and on flame instabilities

When speaking about flame acceleration, resear-
chers typically mean detonation-to-deflagration tran-
sition (DDT) according to the Shelkin scenario; see
[16]. However, flame may accelerate not only in the
scope of the DDT problem. For example, flame ve-
locity increases due to external turbulence or intrin-
sic flame instabilities. We do not discuss these ef-
fects in the present paper because of limited space;
one can see the following reviews and papers on
* Corresponding author. Fax: +46 90 786 66 73.
E-mail address: vitaliy.bychkov@physics.umu.se
(V. Bychkov).
0010-2180/$ see front matter 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Combustion Institute.
doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2007.01.004
[1519].
Another interesting example of flame acceleration
has been suggested and studied experimentally by
Clanet and Searby [20]. Let us consider a flame prop-
agating in a cylindrical tube of radius R with ideally
slip adiabatic walls as shown in Fig. 1. One end of the
tube is closed; the flame is ignited at the symmetry
axis at the closed end. In that case the flame front de-
velops from a hemispherical shape at the beginning to
a finger-shape; see Fig. 1. In the process of burning,
the volume of the burnt gas increases as
dV
= Sw Uf , (1)
dt
where Uf is the planar flame velocity, Sw is the to-
tal surface area of the flame front, and = f /b
264 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276

analytical and numerical results agree with the ex-

perimental data [20]. The simulations also clarify the
effect of the so-called tulip flame.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2
we develop the analytical theory of flame acceleration
in the early stages of burning. Details of the direct
Fig. 1. Geometry of a flame accelerating due to the initial numerical simulations are presented in Section 3. In
conditions. Section 4 we compare the theory and the simulation
results to the experimental data [20]. The paper is con-
is the expansion factor, defined as the density ratio cluded by a brief summary.
of the fuel mixture and the burnt matter. The major
contribution to the flame surface area Sw in Fig. 1
comes from the flame skirt, Sw 2 RZtip , where 2. The analytical theory of flame acceleration
Ztip is the coordinate of the flame tip, and the vol-
ume of the burnt matter may be roughly evaluated as We consider a flame propagating in a cylindrical
V R 2 Ztip . Then Eq. (1) reduces to tube of radius R with ideally slip adiabatic walls and
dZtip U with one end closed. The flame is ignited at the sym-
= 2 f Ztip , (2) metry axis at the closed end. In the analytical theory
dt R
we will use the dimensionless coordinates (; ) =
which leads to the acceleration of the flame tip as (r; z)/R, velocities (w; v) = (ur ; uz )/Uf , and time
Ztip exp(2Uf t/R). (3) = Uf t/R. We employ the standard model of an in-
finitesimally thin flame front, which propagates nor-
It is interesting to compare this effect to the Shelkin mally with the velocity Uf (or unity in the dimension-
acceleration mechanism. The growth rate 2Uf /R less variables). At the beginning, the flame is ignited
is rather large in comparison with that obtained ac- at the tube axis at the closed end (; ) = (0; 0). Ini-
cording to the Shelkin scenario for laminar flames tially, the front is hemispherical, but the flame shape
[5,6]. However, the Shelkin mechanism is not limited changes as the flame skirt f moves along the tube
in time; it takes place until the detonation is trig- end wall ( = 0) from the axis = 0 to the side wall
gered. In contrast, the acceleration mechanism [20] = 1 as shown in Fig. 2. We stress that Fig. 2 and
works in a short time interval, and it is unlikely to the calculations below consider only the flow infini-
produce a DDT under normal conditions. The accel- tesimally close to the wall, at 0. In that limit the
eration starts when the flame evolves from a hemi- flame front touching the wall may be treated as locally
spherical kernel to the finger-shaped front of Fig. 1 cylindrical not only in the case of a finger shape, but
(t > tsph ); the acceleration stops when the flame skirt even for the hemispherical front. The flame separates
touches the wall (t < twall ). According to the experi- the flow into two regions of the fresh fuel mixture and
mental measurements [20], one has tsph 0.1R/Uf , the burnt matter. The incompressible flow is described
twall 0.26R/Uf , which leaves only a short time in-
terval twall tsph 0.16R/Uf for the acceleration.
It is interesting how strongly the flame surface area
may increase during such a short time interval, but
Ref. [20] did not address this question. The purpose
of the present paper is to answer this question as well
as to clarify other aspects of the flame acceleration
obtained experimentally by Clanet and Searby. The
current study is also conceptually close to the work of
Zeldovich [21].
In the present paper we consider flame accelera-
tion in the early stages of burning in tubes with slip
walls, as proposed by Clanet and Searby [20]. We de-
velop the analytical theory of flame acceleration. We
derive the formulas for the acceleration time interval,
tsph < t < twall , and for the growth rate. We show that
the flame surface area increases because of accelera-
tion approximately by a factor of 2 in comparison
with the tube cross section. We also perform direct
numerical simulations of the flame acceleration. The Fig. 2. Flow close to the tube end wall.
 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276
by the continuity equation
1 v
(w) + = 0. (4)
d
The boundary condition at the end-wall = 0 is
v = 0. We are interested in the flow along the wall,
in the limit 0. In the fuel mixture (labeled 1)
the flow is potential; we assume
v1 = A1 , (5)
where the factor A1 may depend on time. The as-
sumption is consistent with the porous piston effect
as the flame approaches the tube wall. In the hemi-
spherical regime of flame propagation it works only
sufficiently close to the wall as the leading term in
for 0. Then the radial velocity in the fuel mixture
is calculated from Eq. (4) as
 
A 1
w1 = 1 . (6)
2 2
In Eq. (6) we have taken into account the bound-
ary condition at the side-wall of the tube w = 0 at
= 1. The velocity distribution in the burnt matter
(labeled 2) takes the form
v2 = A2 , (7)
A
w2 = 2 . (8)
2 to the velocity of a hemispherical front close to the
In general, the flow in the burnt matter of Fig. 1 is ro-
tational because of the curved flame shape. However,
close to the wall, the flame front is locally cylindri-
cal and the flow (7) and (8) is potentialy similar to (5)
and (6). In Eq. (8) we have also taken into account the
boundary condition at the tube axis w = 0 at = 0.
To complete the solution we consider the matching
conditions at the flame front = f ,
df
w1 = 1, (9)
d tors = 68, typical for propane flames, we find
w1 w2 = 1, (10)
v1 = v2 . (11)
The condition (9) specifies the fixed propagation ve-
locity Uf of the flame front with respect to the fuel
mixture (which is unity in scaled variables). The con-
ditions (10) and (11) describe the jump of the normal
velocity and continuity of the tangential velocity at
the front. We stress that Eq. (11) applies only at the
flame skirt close to the wall and it follows from the
irrotational assumption combined with the cylindrical
flame shape, i.e., no shear across the flame front. Sub-
stituting Eqs. (5)(8) into Eqs. (9)(11), we obtain
A1 = A2 = 2( 1)f , (12)
265
and the equation for the flame front
df  
( 1) 1 f2 = 1. (13)
According to Eq. (13), we can separate two opposite
regimes of flame propagation: when the flame skirt
is close to the axis f  1, and when it is close to the
wall 1f  1. In the limit of f  1, the flame prop-
agates with the velocity df /d = (or R f = Uf ).
The same velocity takes place for an expanding hemi-
spherical flame front. In the other case of 1 f 
1, the flame propagation velocity is df /d = 1 (or
R f = Uf ). In that limit a locally cylindrical flame skirt
approaches the wall; the radial velocity of the fresh
fuel mixture tends to zero, and the flame skirt prop-
agates with the planar flame velocity with respect to
the tube end wall. Integrating Eq. (13) with the initial
condition f = 0 at = 0, we find
 
1 + f
= ln , (14)
f
or
exp(2 ) 1
f = = tanh( ), (15)
exp(2 ) + 1
where

= ( 1). (16)
According to Eq. (15), the flame velocity is equal
axis, when 2  1 and f = (or Rf = Uf t).
Respectively, one should expect transition to the
finger-shape at the characteristic time
sph 1/2, (17)
when the flame skirt is at f 0.46/. Of course,
there is no exact mathematical definition of the tran-
sition time. Still, the characteristic time, Eq. (17),
comes as a parameter into Eq. (15) and may be com-
pared to the experiments [20]. For the expansion fac-
5.57.5 and 0.06 < sph < 0.09. The theoretical
evaluation (17) agrees quite well with the experimen-
tal estimates sph 0.1 [20] taking into account a
rather vague definition of the value. Transition to the
finger shape takes place approximately when the
flame skirt has moved halfway to the tube side wall. It
is much easier to determine the time instant when the
flame skirt touches the tube wall. Substituting f = 1
into Eq. (14), we obtain
 
1 +
wall = ln . (18)
2
For the expansion factors = 68 we find 0.23 <
wall < 0.28, which is in very good agreement with
the experimental evaluation wall 0.26 [20]. Thus,
266 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276
Fig. 3. The time limits of flame acceleration, sph and wall ,
versus the expansion factor .
the flame surface area grows almost exponentially in
time during the interval sph < < wall . The time in-
stant sph defined by Eq. (17) and the time wall when
the flame skirt touches the wall, Eq. (18), are shown
in Fig. 3 versus the expansion factor .
We can also find evolution of the flame tip. If we
consider the flow along the axis = 0, as shown in
Fig. 4, then the equation for tip becomes
dtip
v2 = . (19)
d
Equation (19) is the condition of a fixed propagation
velocity of a planar flame front written with respect to
the burnt matter. Similarly to Fig. 2, the flame shape is
locally planar close to the axis, at 0. In that limit
the flow may be described as a potential one, with the
axial velocity component v determined by a function
similar to Eq. (7). Besides, the solution for v along
1/2
the axis has to coincide with Eq. (7) at 0, 0.
Thus we obtain the same formula for v2 along the axis
as in Eqs. (7) and (12). We stress that such reasoning
does not hold away from the axis in the burnt gas,
where the flow is rotational. Still, in the present cal-
culations we have to know only the gas velocity along
the axis. As a result, we come to the differential equa-
tion for the flame tip,
dtip
2( 1)f ( )tip = , (20)
d
with the initial condition tip (0) = 0 and with the so-
lution
 
tip = exp(2 ) exp(2 )
4 Integrating Eq. (26), we find
= sinh(2 ). (21)
2 = C
Just after ignition, 2  1, the flame tip moves in
Fig. 4. Flow close to the tube axis.
or Zwall = R in the dimensional units. By the end of
the acceleration we can neglect the decaying term in
Eq. (21). Then the flame tip accelerates exponentially,
tip exp( ), with the growth rate

= 2 = 2 ( 1), (23)
which is a little different from the model estimate 2
of Eq. (3); see [20]. This difference is small, since
/ = 0.910.94 for propane burning with = 68.
It is also interesting to evaluate total increase of
the flame surface area during the flame acceleration.
By the end of the acceleration, the flame shape is al-
most self-similar, with f 1, tip  1, and tip
exp(2 ). We look for the flame shape f = f (, )
in the form
f (, ) = () exp(2 ). (24)
The accuracy of such an approximation is 1  1,
which is acceptable for the propane flames used in the
experiments [20]. Then the equation of flame evolu-
tion may be written with respect to the burnt matter as
 2
f f f
+ w2 v2 = 1 +
f
. (25)
Of course, the approximation |f/|  1 holds only
near the wall, certainly not near the axis. Still, the
region near the wall contributes most to the flame sur-
face area. Taking into account the exponential regime
of flame acceleration (24) and the velocity distribu-
tion (7) and (8) we reduce Eq. (25) to
  d
2( + 1) = ( 1) . (26)
d
 
( 1) , (27)
where C is the constant of integration and
the same way as the flame skirt, tip = f = ; see 

 
Eqs. (15) and (21), which are similar to an expand-
ing hemispherical flame front. When the flame skirt =2 1 =2 1 . (28)
1 1
touches the wall, = wall , the position of the flame
tip is In the solution (27) and (28) we have to keep only
the terms of the principal order in 1  1, and take
wall = tip (wall ) = sinh(2wall ) = , (22) into account that f (0) = wall = , Eq. (22). Then
2
 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276 267

Eqs. (24), (27), and (28) reduce to (ur ) + (uz ur zr )
t z
f = (1 )1/ . (29) 1   2  P 1
+ r ur rr = , (34)
r r r r
We stress that the solution (29) does not satisfy the  
boundary condition at the axis f/ = 0 at = 0. + ( + P )uz zz uz zr ur + qz
t z
This is, of course, a consequence of the approxima-
1   
tion + r ( + P )ur rr ur zr uz + qr
r r
 2
1/2
f f = 0, (35)
1+ (30)  
1 Y
(Y ) + rur Y r
t r r Sc r
used in Eq. (25) in the limit of 1  1. Still, the  
Y
principal contribution to the flame surface area comes + uz Y
z Sc z
from the flame skirt. Another shortcoming of the eval-
Y
uation (29) is that we adopted the potential flow (7) = exp(Ea /Rp T ), (36)
and (8) everywhere in the burnt matter, while in re- R
ality it holds only close to the tube end wall and to where
the tube axis. Outside of these regions, the flow may
 2 
be rotational because of the curved flame shape. Us- = (QY + CV T ) + uz + u2r (37)
ing the evaluation (29), the scaled surface area of the 2
curved flame front is calculated as is the total energy per unit volume, Y is the mass frac-
 tion of the fuel mixture, Q is the energy release in the
1  2
2 f reaction, and CV is the heat capacity per unit mass
Sw / R = 2 1 + d at constant volume. We consider a single irreversible

0 reaction of the first order. Temperature dependence
1 of the reaction rate obeys the Arrhenius law with the
f 2 activation energy Ea and the constant of time dimen-
2 d = 2 . (31)
+1 sion R . The stress tensor ij is
0
 
Thus, for stoichiometric propane flames with = 8, 4 uz 2 ur 2 ur
zz = , (38)
we should expect a maximal flame surface area 3 z 3 r 3 r
 
as large as Sw / R 2 14.2. Of course, order-of- 4 ur 2 uz 2 ur
magnitude evaluations may be obtained within an rr = , (39)
3 r 3 z 3 r
even simpler and cruder approximation of a cylindri-  
4 ur 2 uz 2 ur
cal shape of radius R and height R with Sw / R 2 = , (40)
2. Relative difference between this approximation 3 r 3 z 3 r
 
and Eq. (31) is about 1/. uz ur
zr = + , (41)
r z
and the heat diffusion vector qi is given by
3. Details of the numerical simulations
 
CP T Q Y
To assess accuracy of the analytical theory de- qz = + , (42)
Pr z Sc z
veloped in the previous section, we performed direct  
CP T Q Y
numerical simulations of the hydrodynamic and com- qr = + . (43)
Pr r Sc r
bustion equations including chemical kinetics and
transport processes. In this section we are using di- Here = is the dynamic viscosity, CP is the heat
mensional variables. We investigated the case of an capacity per unit mass at constant pressure, and Pr and
axisymmetric flow described by the equations Sc are the Prandtl and Schmidt numbers, respectively.
The fuel mixture is assumed to be a perfect gas of
1
+ (rur ) + (uz ) = 0, (32) constant molecular weight m = 2.9 102 kg/mol,
t r r z with CP = 7Rp /2m and CV = 5Rp /2m, where Rp =
8.31 J/(mol K) is the perfect gas constant. The equa-
 2 
(uz ) + uz zz tion of state is
t z

1   P P= Rp T . (44)
+ r(uz ur zr ) = , (33) m
r r z
268 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276
Similarly to our previous simulations [5,6,15,16], we
used the initial pressure and temperature of the fuel
mixture Pf = 105 Pa and Tf = 300 K. We have cho-
sen the chemical parameters of the fuel mixture Ea ,
Q, R , which provide strongly subsonic flame prop-
agation with the initial Mach number Ma Uf /cs =
103 corresponding to the planar flame velocity Uf =
34.7 cm/s. In that case the flow is almost isobaric and
thermal expansion is coupled to the energy release in
the burning process as
T Q
= b =1+ . (45)
Tf C P Tf
To imitate typical propane burning we chose the ex-
pansion factor = 8, the dynamic viscosity =
2.38 105 Ns/m2 , and the Prandtl number Pr =
0.7. The flame thickness has been defined in a con-
ventional way as
Lf . (46)
Pr f Uf
To avoid the Zeldovich (thermal-diffusion) instability
we assumed the coefficients of thermal diffusivity and
fuel diffusion to be equal, i.e., the Lewis number equal
to unity, Le Pr/Sc = 1 [3,23]. We chose the value
of the activation energy Ea = 7Rp Tb , which allows
smoothing the reaction zone over a few computational
cells. Still, in the case of Lewis number Le = 1, nu-
merical results do not depend on the magnitude of Ea
[3].
Similarly to [6,16], we used the axisymmetric hy-
drodynamic Eulerian code developed in Volvo Aero.
The solver is robust and it was utilized quite suc-
cessfully in studies of laminar burning, hydrodynamic
flame instabilities, and flame acceleration in tubes
with nonslip at the walls according to the Shelkin
mechanism. The numerical scheme of the code and
the computational method were described in detail in
[16]. We considered different tube radii in the domain
5 < R/Lf < 30, which corresponds to relatively low
values of the Reynolds number related to the flame
propagation,
Uf R R use, the better we reproduce point ignition of a flame
Reflame = = = 1050. (47)
Pr Lf
The Reynolds number related to the flow of the fuel
mixture is much larger,
2R uz
the open tube end are
Reflow = , (48)
and it may reach 103 104 at the end of the flame ac-
celeration, when the flame skirt touches the wall. For
comparison, steady flows in tubes are usually laminar
at Reflow < 2 103 .
In order to reproduce an infinitely long tube, in the
present simulations we used a tube length much larger
than the tube radius, 20 < L/R < 100. We employed
a square grid with the grid walls parallel to the radial
and axial directions. The grid was uniform with the
cell size 0.2Lf . It was demonstrated recently in [22]
that such a cell size is quite sufficient to simulate dy-
namics of a strongly curved flame front. Indeed, the
characteristic length scale of the temperature profile
inside the flame (the burning zone) is (45)Lf , while
the characteristic width of the active reaction zone is
comparable to Lf [22]. Thus, taking a grid size of
0.2Lf , we obtain about 5 grid points inside the ac-
tive reaction zone and 2025 grid points inside the
flame. For this reason, the grid used in the present
simulations is sufficiently fine to resolve the inner
flame structure even for a strongly elongated flame.
The simulation time step was much smaller than the
characteristic time of flame dynamics R/Uf .
Similarly to the theory, we consider a tube with
ideally slip adiabatic walls and with one end closed.
Boundary conditions at the side walls are
T
ur = 0, uz = 0, =0
r
at r = 0, R. (49)
To avoid the influence of sound waves and weak
shocks reflected from the open tube end, we applied
nonreflecting boundary conditions at the end. These
conditions were tested in detail in [22]; they were
used also in our numerical works on flame acceler-
ation due to the Shelkin mechanism [5,6]. The initial
conditions were chosen in the form
 
T /Tf = 1 + ( 1) exp ( R0 )/Lf ,
if  R0 , (50)
and T /Tf = , if < R0 , with
T /Tf
Y= , (51)
1
where 2 = r 2 + z2 and R0  R is the initial radius
of a hemispherical flame front. The smaller R0 we
front; see Fig. 1. In the present simulations we chose
R0 /Lf = 23. Equations (50) and (51) imitate the
hemispherical counterpart of the ZeldovichFrank
Kamenentsky solution [3]. The initial conditions at
= f , T = Tf ,
uz = 0, ur = 0, Y = 1. (52)
Still, the values of Eq. (52) were not fixed during the
simulation run, and they may change because of the
flame propagation.
 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276 269

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Fig. 5. Flame shape for R = 20Lf at the time instants tUf /R = 0, 0.12, 0.21, 0.28, 0.32, 0.43, 0.64, 1.03. The colors designate
the temperature from the cold gas (blue) to the burnt matter (red). For interpretation of the references to color, in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.

4. Results and discussion Transition from the hemispherical shape to the

In the present section we discuss the simulations
results and compare them to the analytical theory of
Section 2 and to the experimental measurements [20].
Typical evolution of a flame ignited at the tube axis
at the closed end wall is shown in Fig. 5 for the
tube of radius R = 20Lf for different time instants
Uf t/R = 0, 0.12, 0.21, 0.28, 0.32, 0.43, 0.64, 1.03
(Figs. 5a5h, respectively). The temperature distrib-
ution is described by the color (from blue in the fresh
gas to red in the burnt matter). Mark that Figs. 5a5e
are shown in the domain 0 < z/R < 8, but the domain
is shifted along the z-axis in the other three figures to
illustrate the flame structure better. Fig. 5 illustrates
different stages of flame dynamics. We observe ex-
pansion of the hemispherical flame in the initial stage
(Figs. 5a and 5b), acceleration of the finger-shaped
flame in Figs. 5c5e, fast deceleration of the flame
in Fig. 5f, and the tulip flame in Fig. 5g, which col-
lapses again to an almost planar front in Fig. 5h. Later,
the flame will acquire a curved shape again because of
the DarrieusLandau (DL) instability [3]. This effect
was well investigated in the previous numerical simu-
lations of laminar burning in cylindrical tubes [16,18],
and we do not consider it here.
finger-shape and the flame acceleration reproduce
the model [20], Fig. 1, and our theory of Section 2.
Still, one has to remember that the simulations are
performed for a flame of finite thickness, and the
limit of an infinitesimally thin flame front may be
achieved only asymptotically. We start with a hemi-
spherical flame front of small radius 3Lf , shown in
Fig. 5a. At the initial stage the flame expands more
or less uniformly outward with velocity Uf ; the fac-
tor comes from the expansion of the burnt matter.
The regime of hemispherical expansion goes on un-
til the flow becomes affected noticeably by the tube
sidewall. According to the theory of Section 2, for an
expansion factor as large as = 8, it happens approx-
imately half way from the axis to the wall. Fig. 5b
corresponds roughly to the end of the hemispheri-
cal stage, though there is no exact definition of this
time instant. The respective flow pattern is presented
in Fig. 6a. It is well known that in the expansion of
a spherical (or hemispherical) flame in the opening,
the burnt matter is quiescent, and the fuel mixture is
pushed in the radial direction. The flow in Fig. 6a is
already different from the ideal hemispherical expan-
sion. The walls do not allow radial expansion, and the
flow is pushed along the axis both in the fuel mixture
270 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6. Flame shape and the flow for R = 20Lf at the time
instants tUf /R = 0.12 (a), 0.28 (b).
and in the burnt matter in agreement with the theoret-
ical formulas (5)(8).
As soon as the walls influence the flow consider-
ably, the velocity pattern changes. The flame becomes
elongated, and it was described as a finger-shaped
in the experiments [20]. The skirt of the flame front
is almost cylindrical at that stage (which looks almost
planar in the axial cross-section shown in Fig. 5d).
The respective flow is shown in Fig. 6b. In that case
there is almost no flow in the radial direction in the
fuel mixture, and the flame skirt propagates to the wall
with the planar flame velocity Uf . Strong expansion
of the burning matter leads to a strong flow in the ax-
ial direction in the burnt gas. This flow drifts the tip
of the finger-shaped flame in the axial direction and
produces a flame acceleration in agreement with the
experiments [20] and the theory of Section 2. By the
end of the acceleration process, the height of the flame
tip, Ztip , is much larger than the tube radius. Because
of the elongated shape, the surface area of the flame
front, Sw , is much larger than the tube cross-section,
R 2 (which is the surface area of a planar flame prop-
agating in the same tube).
When the flame skirt touches the walls at the time
instant twall the acceleration stops. Because of the
small angle between the flame and the wall, the prop-
agation velocity of the angle point considerably ex-
ceeds the planar flame velocity; the skirt catches up
with the flame tip rather fast. The surface area of the
flame front decreases drastically, and the flame decel-
erates as shown in Figs. 5e and 5f. The deceleration
is accompanied by one more interesting effect, which
may be observed in Figs. 5e5g: the convex flame tip
in Fig. 5e becomes flat in Fig. 5f and inverted (con-
cave) in Fig. 5g. Similar modifications of the flame
shape have been observed experimentally in [20]. In
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7. The flame surface area versus time for tubes of the
radii R/Lf = 1030: (a) usual time scale; (b) logarithmic
time scale.
a certain sense they are related to a tulip-flame phe-
nomenon [2427]. However, the concave shape of the
flame front in Fig. 5g is not stationary; it is much
more elongated than the respective stationary concave
flames developing because of the DL instability [16].
For this reason, the tulip shape collapses, producing
an almost planar flame front in Fig. 5h. At this point
we typically stopped the simulation runs.
It is also interesting to compare the theory, the
simulations, and the experiments quantitatively. The
most important characteristic of the described process
is the flame surface area scaled by the tube cross-
section, Sw / R 2 . In the case of an infinitely thin
flame, the surface area characterizes the total burn-
ing rate. When the flame thickness is finite, these
two values (scaled) in general do not coincide, but
the correlation is strong. The relative increase of the
surface area is shown in Fig. 7 for the tube widths
R/Lf = 1030. In all plots of Fig. 7a one can eas-
ily recognize the interval of the flame acceleration.
The same plots presented in the logarithmic scale
in Fig. 7b demonstrate clearly that the flame accel-
erates exponentially in time as Sw exp( Uf t/R).
The scaled growth rate is evaluated as = 2 in
the model [20], Eq. (3), and as = 2 ( 1),
Eq. (23), in the analytical theory of Section 2. Here we
would like to comment that agreement of the plots for
R/Lf = 15, 20, 25 in Fig. 7 is even too good, taking
 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276 271

Fig. 8. The scaled growth rate versus the tube radius. The
markers show the results of numerical simulations. The solid
line corresponds to the theory, Eq. (23); the dashed line
present the model [20].
Fig. 9. The growth rate versus the equivalence ratio for
propane flames for tube radii 2.5 and 5 cm. The filled mark-
ers show the experimental results [20]; the empty markers
and the lines show the theoretical result, Eq. (23) calculated
using the data of Table 1.

into account inevitable numerical errors of the simu-

lations; we believe this is a coincidence. On the other
hand, difference of the curves with R/Lf = 30 and
R/Lf = 15, 20, 25 should not be treated as disagree-
ment. Particularly, the difference in wall obtained for
R/Lf = 30 and, say, R/Lf = 25 is about 10%, which
is a reasonable accuracy for direct numerical simu-
lations. Fig. 8 compares the theoretical formulas for
the growth rate with the numerical results obtained
for different tube radii. We can see that the numerical
growth rate increases for wider tubes and approaches
the theoretical evaluations for R/Lf > 20. For tubes
Fig. 10. The scaled flame surface area, Sw /R 2 , the tip po-
of smaller radii R/Lf < 20 the numerical growth rate
sition, Ztip /R, and the skirt position, Zskirt /R, versus time
is noticeably smaller than the theoretical predictions
for R = 20Lf .
because of the smoothing effect of finite flame thick-
ness. Fig. 9 compares the experimental results on the
growth rate to the theoretical formulas for different
equivalence ratios of propane flames for tubes of two
radii, R = 2.5 and 5 cm. In order to perform the com-
parison, we have taken the values of the planar flame
velocity Uf and the expansion factor for propane
flames versus the equivalence ratio from [28]; see
Table 1. The filled markers in Fig. 9 show the ex-
perimental results for the growth rate [20], and the
curves present the theoretical results; the empty mark-
ers on the curves correspond to the data for Uf and
available in Table 1. We can see that the theoretical Fig. 11. Maximal surface area of the flame front versus the
predictions agree quite well with the experiments. tube radius. The markers show the results of numerical sim-
The acceleration in Fig. 7a ends with a sharp peak ulations. The solid line corresponds to the theory, Eq. (31).
corresponding to the maximal surface area Sw when
the flame skirt touches the wall. Fig. 10 presents to- presented by the dashed line. We can see that the
gether the flame surface area, the tip position, and the maximal surface area increases for wider tubes, and it
position of the flame skirt when it moves along the approaches the theoretical prediction. This tendency
tube side wall for R/Lf = 20. We can see clearly is related to the influence of finite flame thickness,
that the abrupt drop of the surface area happens at which becomes smaller for wider tubes. Besides, one
the time instant twall , which is the starting point for has to remember that Eq. (31) was obtained with ac-
the skirt-plot. The maximal surface area obtained curacy 1  1. Keeping in mind the limitations of
in numerical simulations is shown in Fig. 11 versus the theory, we can say that the theory and the sim-
the tube width R/Lf (markers); the theoretical for- ulations agree rather well. Unfortunately, the experi-
mula (31) for an infinitesimally thin flame front is ments [20] did not address the maximal surface area,
272 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276

Table 1
Parameters of the propaneair frame versus the equivalence ratio according to [28]
0.63 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
6.04 6.21 6.56 7.15 7.66 8.02 8.08 8.0 7.88 7.74 7.6 7.48
Uf (cm/s) 14.7 17.0 21.7 30.3 37.4 41.8 42.9 39.9 32.2 22.6 13.8 9.8

Fig. 12. Position of the flame tip by the end of the acceler-
ation versus the tube radius. The markers show the results
of numerical simulations; the solid line corresponds to the
theory, Eq. (22).
and we cannot compare the respective numerical and
theoretical results to the experimental ones. Fig. 12
shows the height of the flame tip till the end of the
flame acceleration obtained in the numerical simula-
tions and predicted by the theory for = 8, Eq. (22).
This plot looks qualitatively similar to the previous
one: the numerical results for the tip height increase
with the tube radius (with decreasing influence of
flame thickness) and approach the theoretical predic-
tions. Fig. 13 presents the tip position for a propane
air flame of equivalence ratio = 0.7 obtained ex-
perimentally [20]. The dashed line shows theoretical
predictions of Section 2, Eq. (21), for = 6.56 cor-
responding to = 0.7. We can see that the theory
is in excellent agreement with the experiments. The
marker indicates the time instant when the flame skirt
touches the wall, with the tip position Zwall = R,
Eq. (22). Strictly speaking, the theory of Section 2
holds only up to this time instant. Still, as we can
see from Fig. 13, the theory describes the tip posi-
tion quite well even beyond that limit until a tulip
flame is formed with temporal retreat of the axial
point at the flame front. For comparison we show also
the results of numerical simulations in Fig. 13. The
numerical simulations provide qualitatively the same
picture. However, one should not expect quantitative
agreement in that case because of the inevitable nar-
row tubes in the simulations. Besides, the simulations
assumed = 8, which is different from the experi-
mental data of Fig. 13.
Another interesting question concerns time limits
of the acceleration: it starts when the spherical flame
develops into a finger-shaped front at tsph , and it
stops when the flame touches the wall at twall . The
Fig. 13. Position of the flame tip versus time according
to the theory (dashed line), Eq. (21), experiments [20]
for the propaneair mixture with = 0.7, and modeling.
The marker indicates the time instant when the flame skirt
touches the wall.
Fig. 14. Characteristic time instants of the flame evolution,
tsph , twall , and ttulip , versus the ratio R/Uf (s). The markers
show the experimental results [20]; the lines correspond to
the theoretical formulas, Eq. (17), (18), and (59), with = 1.
takes the average value 7.28.
theoretical evaluations of these two time instants are
given by Eqs. (17) and (18). As for the numerical re-
sults, it is difficult to extract tsph from the numerical
simulations because of the vague definition of that in-
stant. In the experiments [20] this time has not been
measured either; instead, it was calculated on the ba-
sis of the model Eqs. (1)(3) using the formula
R
tsph = twall ln(Zwall /R). (53)
2Uf
In contrast, the instant twall is defined quite well, and
it may be compared to the theory and the experiments.
Fig. 14 compares the theoretical predictions and the
numerical results to the experimental data of [20].
At that point we have to say that different equiva-
lence ratios of the propaneair flame correspond to
 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276
Fig. 15. Position of the flame skirt versus time according to
Eq. (54), experiments [20] for the propaneair mixture with
= 0.7 (markers), and modeling.
the different expansion factors = 68 and, there-
fore, lead to somewhat different values for tsph , twall .
To plot the theoretical lines we took an intermediate
value = 7.23 calculated as an average for all exper-
imental points. Still, even with this inevitable reason
for scattering of the experimental points, the theory
agrees well with the experiments.
As soon as the flame touches the side wall of the
tube, the skirt of the flame front sweeps along the wall
at high speed because of the small angle between the
2( 1)( skirt )
flame front and the wall. Fig. 15 shows the skirt posi-
( skirt ), (55)
tion versus time obtained experimentally for = 0.7
in [20] and in the numerical simulations. Similarly to
Fig. 13 for the flame tip, the numerical results under-
estimate the skirt velocity, presumably because of the
tip 2 ( wall ) + , (56)
influence of the finite flame thickness. It was pointed
out in [20] that during the interval of flame decelera-
tion the skirt velocity is almost constant, and it corre-
lates rather well with the value Uf Zwall /R. The last
value may be calculated on the basis of our theory in
Section 2 as 2 ( 1)Uf , which gives the skirt
velocity
 +
Uskirt = 2 ( 1)Uf , (54)
with the factor comparable to unity. The physical
meaning of is that it compares the skirt velocity
during the deceleration to the characteristic parameter
of velocity dimension Uf Zwall /R during the flame
acceleration. In Fig. 15 we took = 1.25 to obtain
the best agreement of Eq. (54) with the experiments;
Uskirt is calculated from the slope of Zskirt . However,
in general may depend on the expansion factor .
Fig. 16 compares the skirt velocity measured experi-
mentally to the theoretical value for Uf Zwall /R; the
solid line presents Eq. (54) for = 1.25. Indeed, we
can see a very good correlation between the experi-
mental data and Eq. (54). Eventually the skirt catches
up with the tip, and the flame front becomes first pla-
nar and then inverted (or tulip-shaped). The time in-
stant of inversion was called ttulip in [20], and the time
interval needed for the inversion is tinv = ttulip twall .
273
Fig. 16. Correlation of the skirt velocity with the value
Zwall /R. The markers show the experimental results [20];
the line corresponds to Eq. (54) with = 1.25.
The characteristic experimental evaluations for these
values were twall 0.26R/Uf , ttulip 0.33R/Uf ,
tinv 0.07R/Uf . We point out that the last value
correlates rather well with the inverse growth rate
1 R/Uf . The reason for such a correlation may
be demonstrated within the following semiqualitative
model. As the skirt position moves along the wall, the
burnt gas velocity, Eq. (7), modifies roughly as
v2 = A2 ( skirt )
and Eq. (20) reduces to
dtip
d
taking into account Eq. (54). Because of the initial
conditions tip (wall ) = , Eq. (22), we can neglect
the last term in Eq. (56) in the limit of 1  1.
Then, integrating (56), we find that
 
tip = ( 1) exp ( wall )
 
( wall ) . (57)
The instant ttulip corresponds to Ztip = Zskirt or
dtip /d = 0, and the interval of inversion tinv =
ttulip twall is calculated from (57) as
 
Uf tinv /R = inv = 1 ln . (58)
1
The evaluation (58) for tinv is simpler than the respec-
tive formulas in [20], and it demonstrates clearly the
correlation tinv 1 R/Uf . Still, one has to remem-
ber that calculations (55)(58) are only a qualitative
model based on the empirical formula (54). There-
fore, in reality, one should interpret (58) as another
correlation of the form
tinv = 1 R/Uf (59)
with the coefficient comparable to unity. The eval-
uation (59) is compared to the experimental data in
274 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276
Fig. 17. A curved flame shape in an open 2D channel with
adiabatic and slip walls [15].
Fig. 14 for ttulip = twall + tinv with = 1. In the nu-
merical simulations of the present paper the flame
inversion happens somewhat later, about ttulip
0.45R/Uf , which is also related to the stabilizing role
of finite flame thickness together with lower values of
the skirt velocities in Fig. 15.
Finally, we would like to discuss the so-called
tulip flame observed in the experiments [20] and in
the present simulations. The notion of a tulip flame
is poorly defined, which allows rather loose specula-
tions about its origin; see, for example, [2427] and
other references in [20]. The problem is reviewed
quite well in [20]. From the geometrical point of
view, the tulip shape is simply a concave shape of
a curved flame front with a sharp cusp pointing to
the burnt gas. Such a shape may be produced for
a large number of different reasons with little rela-
tion between each other or with no relation at all.
The shape may be stationary or nonstationary. For ex-
ample, a concave stationary flame develops because
of the DL instability, as demonstrated in the sim-
ulations for 2D channels and cylindrical tubes [15,
16,19]. Even more, in a 2D channel with adiabatic
slip walls the concave (tulip) flame is identical to
a convex (non-tulip) flame. For example, Fig. 17
shows a characteristic shape of a curved stationary
flame in a 2D channel shown by isotherms (the flame
propagates downward, R = 20Lf [15]). The adia-
batic slip walls of the channel at x/R = 0, 1 may
be treated as symmetry axes. Then, reflecting the
curved flame with respect to the axis x/R = 1, we
obtain a concave (tulip) flame, but taking a reflec-
tion with respect to the axis x/R = 0, we come to
a convex (non-tulip) flame with identical proper-
ties. The difference between the convex and concave
stationary flames appears only in a 3D flow (e.g.,
in cylindrical tubes), where the convex flames have
higher propagation velocity [16]. Flame interaction
with nonslip walls may lead to the oscillating con-
cave shape of the flame front, which may be also
interpreted as tulip flames [22]. Another interesting
process is inversion of a flame shape, when a con-
vex flame becomes concave or vice versa. From that
point of view, the notion of tulip flames captures
only one possibility, namely, transition from a con-
vex flame shape to a concave one, as in experiments
[20] and in the present numerical simulations. Clanet
and Searby related inversion of the flame shape to
the flame deceleration and the RichtmeyerMeshkov
mechanism of shock interaction with a surface of den-
sity jump [29,30]. The first theoretical discussion of
flameshock interaction in that context goes back to
Markstein [31], who considered linear dynamics of a
slightly curved flame under the action of a pulse ac-
celeration representing a shock wave. Unfortunately,
Markstein adopted rather peculiar initial conditions at
the flame front corresponding to zero time derivative
of the flame perturbations. This may be achieved by
a unique combination of the growing and decaying
modes of the DL instability, which should happen ex-
actly at the time when a shock arrives. At present,
it is difficult to say what the reason for such a pe-
culiar choice was. Probably, Markstein tried to imi-
tate a curved stationary flame typical to the nonlinear
stage of the DL instability, or to achieve initial con-
ditions similar to the RichtmeyerMeshkov instabil-
ity [29,30]. Anyway, the specific choice of the initial
conditions led to the conclusion of limited validity
that a curved flame front is always inverted by a
shock irrespective of the shock intensity. More phys-
ical initial conditions for the linear problem corre-
spond to a dominating growing DL mode considered
in [32]. It was obtained in [32] that a flameshock
collision (face-to-face) may lead to different possi-
bilities depending on the shock intensity: (1) a flame
front may be temporarily stabilized without inversion;
(2) it may be stabilized with inversion; or (3) it may
be destabilized with inversion. The last two possibil-
ities may be interpreted as formation of a tulip-
flame. It was also demonstrated in direct numerical
simulations [33] that the critical values for the flame
inversion obtained in the linear analysis [32] work
quite well even for the nonlinear problem of flame
shock collision. A shock of sufficient strength may
even turbulize the flame, but such a case was not con-
sidered in [33]. In the numerical simulations of the
present paper we used nonreflecting boundary condi-
tions at the open end of the tube, and there were no
real shocks coming back to the flame. However, flame
deceleration in the time interval twall < t < ttulip has
the same influence on flame dynamics as an effec-
tive coming shock. The flame propagation velocity
Uf Sw / R 2 drops from 2Uf to Uf . This veloc-
ity drop is much larger than the critical values needed
to invert the flame shape by a shock [32,33]. For this
reason, in the present simulations we observe flame
inversion leading to a strongly concave (tulip) flame
 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276
shape with the surface area Sw / R 2 = 2.4 exceed-
ing noticeably the respective surface area of the sta-
tionary concave flames Sw / R 2 = 1.11.2; see [16].
The maximal flame curvature in the tulip flame cor-
responds to the local (in time) maximum of the flame
surface area in Fig. 7a achieved at Uf t/R 0.6. Later,
the strongly concave flame collapses again to the pla-
nar flame shape, which may eventually develop to a
stationary DL curved flame like that obtained in [16].
To conclude the discussion, we believe that the notion
of tulip flame is misleading, since it embraces too
many combustion phenomena of different origin. In-
stead, it would be much better to talk about curved
flames, indicating the reason for the curved shape.
A particular example is inversion of the curved flame
shape because of a shock as in [32,33] or because of
flame deceleration as in [20] and in the present pa-
per.
5. Summary
In the present paper we investigated acceleration
of premixed laminar flames in tubes according to the
mechanism suggested in [20]. Acceleration happens
due to the initial geometry of flame ignition, when
a flame develops from a spherical kernel to a finger-
shaped front with a tip accelerating exponentially in
time. This effect should not be confused with the
classical Shelkin mechanism of flame acceleration be-
cause of the nonslip at the walls. Acceleration stud-
ied in the present paper happens with a much higher
growth rate, but only during a limited time, and it is
unlikely to lead to the DDT under normal conditions.
As an option, the present effect may act as a precursor
to the Shelkin mechanism. Another option, which yet
has to be checked, is that the present mechanism can
trigger detonation in a strongly preheated fuel mix-
ture similarly to the modelling [34] and the analytical
theory [35].
We have developed the analytical theory of flame
acceleration. We have obtained the growth rate,
which is slightly different from the previous estimates
of [20]. We have also derived formulas for the time
limits of the acceleration process: the acceleration
starts when the hemispherical flame develops to the
finger-shaped flame; the acceleration stops when the
flame skirt touches the walls. The growth rate and
the time limits of the process agree well with experi-
ments [20]. We find the maximal increase of the flame
surface area by the end of the acceleration, which
is roughly Sw / R 2 2, Eq. (31). We performed
direct numerical simulations of the flame accelera-
tion for the complete set of combustion equations.
The simulations results and the theory are in agree-
ment with the previous experiments, demonstrating
275
the most interesting stages of flame dynamics: hemi-
spherical expansion, acceleration of the finger-shaped
flame, rapid deceleration when the flame skirt sweeps
along the tube side wall, and inversion of the flame
shape, which may be also interpreted as a tulip
flame.
In the present paper we considered only the case of
adiabatic tube walls. Losses to the walls may reduce
the effective thermal expansion and make the flame
acceleration noticeably weaker. This is a subject for
future work.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Geoffrey Searby for the experi-
mental data of Figs. 9 and 1316 and Mikhail Ivanov
for useful discussions. This work has been supported
in part by the Swedish Research Council (VR) and by
the Kempe Foundation.
References
[1] K.I. Shelkin, Zh. Exp. Teor. Fiz. 10 (1940) 823.
[2] J.H.S. Lee, Handbook of Shock Waves, Academic
Press/Elsevier, New York, 2001.
[3] Ya.B. Zeldovich, G.I. Barenblatt, V.B. Librovich, G.M.
Makhviladze, Mathematical Theory of Combustion and
Explosion, Consultants Bureau, New York, 1985.
[4] G. Roy, S. Frolov, A. Borisov, D. Netzer, Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 30 (2004) 545.
[5] V. Bychkov, A. Petchenko, V. Akkerman, L.E. Eriks-
son, Phys. Rev. E 72 (2005) 046307.
[6] V. Akkerman, V. Bychkov, A. Petchenko, L.E. Eriks-
son, Combust. Flame 145 (2006) 206.
[7] G. Searby, P. Clavin, Combust. Sci. Technol. 46 (1986)
167.
[8] R. Aldredge, F. Williams, J. Fluid Mech. 228 (1991)
487.
[9] B. Denet, Phys. Rev. E 55 (1997) 6911.
[10] V. Bychkov, Phys. Rev. E 68 (2003) 066304.
[11] V. Akkerman, V. Bychkov, Combust. Theory Model. 9
(2005) 323.
[12] D. Bradley, P. Gaskell, X. Gu, A. Sedaghat, Combust.
Flame 143 (2005) 227.
[13] V. Bychkov, A. Petchenko, V. Akkerman, Combust.
Sci. Technol. 179 (2007) 137.
[14] T. Poinsot, D. Veynante, Theoretical and Numerical
Combustion, Edwards, Ann Arbor, MI, 2005.
[15] V. Bychkov, S. Golberg, M. Liberman, L.E. Eriksson,
Phys. Rev. E 54 (1996) 3713.
[16] V. Bychkov, S. Golberg, M. Liberman, A. Kleev, L.E.
Eriksson, Combust. Sci. Technol. 129 (1997) 217.
[17] S. Kadowaki, Phys. Fluids 11 (1999) 3426.
[18] V. Bychkov, M. Liberman, Phys. Rep. 325 (2000)
115.
[19] S. Kadowaki, T. Hasegawa, Prog. Energy Combust.
Sci. 31 (2005) 193.
276 V. Bychkov et al. / Combustion and Flame 150 (2007) 263276
[20] C. Clanet, G. Searby, Combust. Flame 105 (1996) 225.
[21] Ya.B. Zeldovich, Air Mat. Commands Technol.
Reports, 1947, F-TS-1226-1A.
[22] V. Akkerman, V. Bychkov, A. Petchenko, L.E. Eriks-
son, Combust. Flame 145 (2006) 675.
[23] G.I. Barenblatt, Ya.B. Zeldovich, A.G. Istratov, Prikl.
Mech. Techn. Fiz. 2 (1962) 21.
[24] H. Genoche, in: G. Markstein (Ed.), Non-Steady Flame
Propagation, Pergamon, London, 1964, p. 107.
[25] M. Gonzalez, R. Borghi, A. Saouab, Combust. Flame
88 (1992) 201.
[26] B. Nkonga, G. Fernandez, H. Guillard, B. Larroutrou,
Combust. Sci. Technol. 87 (1992) 69.
[27] M. Gonzalez, Combust. Flame 107 (1996) 245.
[28] S.G. Davis, J. Quinard, G. Searby, Combust. Flame 130
(2002) 123.
[29] R.D. Richtmeyer, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 13 (1960)
297.
[30] E.E. Meshkov, Fluid. Dynam. (USSR) 4 (1969) 101.
[31] G. Markstein, in: G. Markstein (Ed.), Non-Steady
Flame Propagation, Pergamon, London, 1964, p. 15.
[32] V. Bychkov, Phys. Fluids 10 (1998) 2669.
[33] O. Travnikov, V. Bychkov, M. Liberman, Combust.
Sci. Technol. 142 (1999) 1.
[34] L. Kagan, G. Sivashinsky, Combust. Flame 134 (2003)
389.
[35] V. Bychkov, V. Akkerman, Phys. Rev. E 73 (2006)
066305.