Approximations for Burning Velocities and Markstein

Numbers for Lean Hydrocarbon and Methanol Flames

U. C. MULLER, M. BOLLIG, AND N. PETERS*
Institute J~r Technische Mechanik, RWTH Aachen, Germany

Burning velocities of lean-to-stoichiometric n-heptane-, iso-octane-, and methanol-air mixtures have been
numerically calculated over a wide range of pressure and preheat temperatures. The numerical calculations
are based on elementary reaction mechanisms comprising a few hundred reactions. They are then
approximated using a two-equation analytic expression that has successfully been applied for flames of
methane, ethylene, ethane, acetylene, and propane. Markstein numbers are also predicted for all these fuels.
The predictions are compared with the few experimental data on Markstein numbers that exist in the
literature. Copyright© 1997 by The Combustion Institute

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N mentary or reduced reaction mechanisms [5].

Pure fuels such as propane, n-heptane, iso-oc-
tane, and methanol very often serve as refer-
ence fuels for combustion studies in recipro-
cating engines. Therefore, there is a need for
reliable data of burning velocities for these
fuels at high pressures and preheat tempera-
tures and at various equivalence ratios. In a
previous paper [1] that considered methane,
ethylene, ethane, acetylene, and propane
flames, numerically generated burning veloci-
ties were approximated using an algebraic ex-
pression that had been derived for m e t h a n e - a i r
flames by asymptotic methods [11]. The ap-
proximation uses the inner layer temperature
as an auxiliary variable and thereby provides a
means of calculating effective Zel'dovich num-
bers as a function of equivalence ratio, pres-
sure, and preheat temperature. In this paper,
we extend this approach to n-heptane, iso-oc-
tane, and methanol.
Present theories of turbulent flame propaga-
tion emphasize the importance of flame stretch
on the turbulent burning velocity. The re-
sponse of the burning velocity to flame stretch
can be parameterized by the Markstein length
[2--4]. Therefore, the Markstein length, or its
ratio to the flame thickness, the Markstein
number, needs to be known accurately. The
Markstein length can, in principle, also be ob-
tained from numerical calculations of strained
or curved one-dimensional flames using ele-
* Corresponding author.
COMBUSTION AND FLAME 108:349-356 (1997)
Copyright © 1997 by The Combustion Institute
Published by Elsevier Science Inc.
Here, however, we will use an asymptotic ex-
pression derived in [6] in combination with the
Zel'dovich number from the burning velocity
approximation to derive an analytic expression
for the Markstein n u m b e r over a large range
of pressures, equivalence ratios, and preheat
temperatures.
Measurements of burning velocities of those
hydrocarbon fuels which are liquids at room
temperature are difficult to obtain, since the
fuel must be gasified before combustion. There
are early computations like those of Gibbs and
Calcote [7], a few measurements of methanol
and iso-octane-air flames by Metghalchi and
Keck [8], and a review by Bradley et al. [9]. On
the other hand, recent numerical calculations
of burning velocities for hydrocarbons such as
propane seem to be able to predict burning
velocities with sufficient accuracy [10]. Also,
since detailed kinetic mechanisms are now
available for methanol and for higher hydro-
carbons such as n-heptane and iso-octane,
there is sufficient motivation to first calculate
burning velocities of these three fuels numeri-
cally and to validate the predictions by experi-
mental data later. Once such numerical predic-
tions are available over a large range of pres-
sures and preheat temperatures, they can be
approximated to obtain analytic expressions.
2. F O R M U L A T I O N
We consider a planar steady-state flame con-
figuration normal to the x direction with the
unburnt mixture at x ~ - m , the burnt gas at
0010-2180/97/$ 17.00
PII S0010-2180(96X)(I110-1
350 M U L L E R ET AL.

x ~ + o~. The one-dimensional balance equa- The stoichiometric coefficients of the forward
tions for continuity, mass fractions of the and backward step for species j in reaction k
chemical species, and energy are are denoted by v~,~ and v~j. The rate coeffi-
cients k~f(T) and kbk(T) are expressed in the
d( p u) form
- - =0, (1)
dx
d~ dji k k = AkTn~exp ( - ~ T ~ ) . (8)
- rh i , (2)
pu dx dx
dT The kinetic data for n-heptane, iso-octane, and
pUCp dx - dx h ~ x methanol were compiled from the recent liter-
ature and are given in Ref. 12. Transport prop-
erties were taken from Ref. 13.
-- ~ hirhi -- ~ CpiJi-~x
dT . (3) The numerical code used was an in-house
i=1 i=1
development called FlameMaster. The flames
The continuity equation may be integrated to were computed by starting from a converged
yield the burning velocity, sL, defined with solution at p = 1 bar, 4~ = 1, and T, = 298 K.
respect to the unburnt mixture (subscript u), The computation time for a single flame was
as an eigenvalue of the problem approximately 2 min on a desktop computer.
Approximately 200 flames were calculated for
pu = p~sL. (4) each of the three fuel-air mixtures in the
pressure range of 1 bar to 40 bar, for preheat
The momentum equation has been used in the
temperatures ranging from 298 K to 800 K,
limit of small Mach numbers to obtain the
and fuel-to-air equivalence ratios between ~b
condition
= 0.6 and ~b = 1.
p = constant (5)
3. APPROXIMATION OF BURNING
throughout the flame.
VELOCITIES
In the above equations, u is the velocity in
the x direction. Furthermore, p is the density, As in Ref. 1, we wish to approximate the
Y~ is the mass fraction of species i, cpi is the burning velocities of lean n-heptane, iso-oc-
specific heat at constant pressure, ji is the tane, and methanol-air mixtures in the range
diffusion flux of species i, rh i is the chemical of preheat temperatures between 298 K and
production rate of species i, T is the tempera- 800 K and pressures between 1 bar and 40 bar.
ture, Cp is the heat capacity at constant pres- The asymptotic analysis presented in Ref. 11
sure of the mixture, A is the thermal conductiv- leads to an equation for the burning velocity s L
ity, and h i is the specific enthalpy of species i. of stoichiometric methane-air flames which
The chemical production rate rh~ contains con- has the general form
tributions from all reactions (k = 1, 2 . . . . . r):
o ' T, (T b - T°) 2
1~i : Wi ~ llikWk, (6) sL = A ( T )Y},, To (Tb T,)2 . (9)
k=l
where W~ is the molecular weight of species i Here, T o is the inner layer temperature, repre-
and the reaction rates are given by senting the crossover temperature between
chain-branching and chain-breaking reactions.
Within the temperature profile of a premixed
Wk : kfk(Z) f i t ~ PYJ
Wj ) flame it marks the transition from the inert
preheat zone to the reaction zone, and it is
therefore the point where the second deriva-
tive vanishes and the slope is maximum. The
j=l ~j]" ) function A(T °) only depends on thermody-
APPROXIMATIONS FOR B U R N I N G VELOCITIES AND MARKSTEIN NUMBERS 351

namic and kinetic properties and YF,, is the
mass fraction of the fuel in the unburnt gas.
The temperatures T, and Tb are those in the
unburnt and the burnt gas, respectively. An
additional algebraic equation is derived for the
inner layer temperature T o in Ref. 11 as a
function of pressure. Subsequent analyses for
premixed methanol [14] and n-heptane flames
[15] lead to similar expressions for the burning
velocity.
The asymptotic analysis provides the frame-
work for an approximation formula for the
burning velocity. As in Ref. 1, we assume that
the inner layer temperature does not depend
on the equivalence ratio, and we determine a
value of T o for each pressure such that the
best fit for the burning velocities over the
entire range of data is obtained. The relation
between the inner layer temperature and the
pressure and the function A ( T °) are approxi-
mated as
constants F, G, m, and n, with fixed values of
B and E. The latter are finally optimized itera-
tively such that the weighted sum of the dif-
ference between the calculated burning veloci-
ties and the approximation is a minimum. The
approximation constants B, E, F, G, m, and n
for the different fuels are listed in Table 1.
The values obtained previously [1] for methane,
acetylene, ethylene, ethane, and propane
flames are included here for completeness. The
approximations are valid for lean flames only.
The burnt gas temperature was defined as the
adiabatic flame temperature at chemical equi-
librium. It is calculated by solving the nonlin-
ear system of algebraic equations for chemical
equilibrium by an iterative procedure allowing
for the stable species 0 2, N 2, H 2 0 , CO2, H 2,
and CO only. The equilibrium temperature
turns out to be within less than 5% indepen-
dent of pressure for these conditions. It is then
approximated for lean flames as a function of
equivalence ratio 4' as

p=Bexp -~ , (10)
Tb =aT,, + b + c 4 , + d 4 , 2 + e 4 , ~, ~b<l.
(13)
A ( T II) = F exp -~-~ . (11)

Values for the coefficients a - e and the Lewis

Furthermore, as in Ref. 1, we replace Eq. 9 by
I, ., T . [ T b - T
,, = A t T ) Y / . T I T ~
with variable exponents m and n. We take the
logarithm of the burning velocity and use the
Gaussian least-square integral approximation
method to determine the linear approximation
number for the different fuels are listed in
Table 2.
I' " Examples of calculated and approximated
r,, ' (12) burning velocities for n-heptane, iso-octane,
and methanol are shown in Figs. 1-6. The
approximations agree with the calculated val-
ues within a few percent. The inner layer tem-
peratures corresponding to these fuels are
plotted in Fig. 7. It is interesting to note that
T ° is nearly 200 K larger for methanol than

TABLE 1

Approximation Constants for Burning Velocity.

Fuel B [bar] E[K] F [cm/s] G [K] rn n

CH 4 3.1557 × l0 n 23873.0 2.21760 × 101 -6444.27 0.565175 2.5158

C~ H~ 5.6834 × 104 11344.4 3.77466 × 104 1032.36 0.9(17619 2.5874
C: H 4 3.7036 × 105 14368.7 9.97890 X 103 263.23 0.771333 2.3998
C2H . 4.3203 × 1(16 18859.0 1.90041 N 103 -506.97 0.431345 2.18(/4
C3H ~ 2.2501 × 10 ~' 17223.5 1.27489 N 103 -1324.78 0.582214 2.3970
CH3OH 2.11(10 × 10 ~ 17657.5 9.99557 × 1(13 1088.85 0.91 2.263
n-C ; H 16 1.7000 X 10 ~ 175(18.1) 7.95600 N 103 912.00 0.52 2.30
i-C~I-tI~ 3.8000 × 107 20906.0 2.92600 X 103 -25.60 0.5578 2.5214
352 MULLER ET AL.

TABLE 2

Coefficients for Calculating Adiabatic Flame Temperature, and Values of Lewis Number.

Fuel a b [K] c [K] d [K] e[K] Le

CH~ 0.627 1270.15 - 2449. 6776 - 3556 0.91

CH 3OH 0.77 1260.0 - 2449. 6797 - 3594 1.68
C 2H 2 0.52 1646.0 - 2965. 8187 - 4160 1.68
C 2H 4 0.44 602.0 880. 2686 - 1891 1.21
C 2H 6 0.526 1437.0 - 2967. 7538 - 3873 1.32
C3H 8 0.53 1434.0 - 2952. 7518 - 3856 1.63
n-C 7H 16 0.49 758.7 - 277.8 4269 - 2642 2.056
i-C 8Hi8 0.61 936.0 - 1127. 5326 - 3044 2.55

so .I,l,l.I, I , l , l , l ~ , 3S 1,1,1,1.1.1.1,1.1.1'~
Fuel:n-heptane Fuel: iso-octane / -
SL 30 T u =298 [K] .,~
[cngsl 40- [cm/sl p = I [bar] /
25

20

20 15-

10-
10-
5-

0 I'l'l'l'l 0 I I I I I I I I I ] I
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 I 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
O
Fig. 1. Burning velocities of n-heptane at a preheat tem- Fig. 3. Burning velocities of iso-octane at a preheat tem-
perature of 298 K as a function of equivalence ratio and perature of 298 K as a function of equivalence ratio and
pressure. Circles denote numerically calculated burning pressure. Circles denote numerically calculated burning
velocities and solid lines, analytic approximations. velocities and solid lines, analytic approximations.

3so., I ........ I 25o.- I . . . . . . . . I

Fuel: n-heptane • -- I Fuel:iso-octane • =1
SL 300 8L O~Tu -- 800 [K]
CY'Tu = 800 [K]
[cm/s] [cm/s] 200 -
250 -
o"...70o

150 - 2 0'~600
100 ~ ~ ~ ~ - - . . ~

o ' - - 2 9 8 ~
o I . . . . . . . . I ' ' ' o I . . . . . . . . [ ' ' '
1 IO lO
p [bar] p lbarl
Fig. 2. Burning velocities of n-heptane at qb = 1 as a Fig. 4. Burning velocities of iso-octane at qb = 1 as a
function of pressure and preheat temperature. Circles function of pressure and preheat temperature. Circles
denote numerically calculated burning velocities and solid denote numerically calculated burning velocities and solid
lines, analytic approximations. lines, analytic approximations.
A P P R O X I M A T I O N S F O R B U R N I N G V E L O C I T I E S AND M A R K S T E I N NUMBERS 353

40 ,I,I,i,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,~, 1800 . . . . . . . . - , . . . . . .

Fuel: methanol
st. 35 Tu =298 [K] ../
i.ss° n° I J J
[em/s] 30 p=l [barFJ~ ~ 1600-

To[K]
20 1400-
15
10 1200-
5
o ' F, ~ - ~ i ~ " r - I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' 1ooo . . . . . . . .
I ........
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 10 I00
q~
p [barl
Fig. 5. Burning velocities of methanol at a preheat tem-
Fig. 7. Inner layer temperatures of methanol, n-heptane,
perature of 298 K as a function of equivalence ratio and
and iso-octane as a function of pressure.
pressure. Circles denote numerically calculated burning
velocities and solid lines, analytic approximations.

4. CALCULATIONS OF MARKSTEIN
N U M B E R S

for the two higher hydrocarbons. Since in the

The response of wrinkled flames to stretch has
inner layer the fuel is consumed by the attack
been analyzed by Clavin and Williams [2], Pelce
of radicals [11], this indicates that relatively
and Clavin [3], and Matalon and Matkowsky [4]
more radicals are consumed for the same
on the basis of an asymptotic analysis, assum-
amount of heat release of methanol compared
ing that the wavelength of the perturbations is
to iso-octane and n-heptane. This is also con-
much larger than the flame thickness. They
firmed by a comparison of the global mecha-
show that the burning velocity s L of a stretched
nism for methanol [13] and n-heptane [14],
flame differs from that of the corresponding
which both consume two radicals, while n-
unstretched flame s ° as
heptane release more heat per mole of fuel
than methanol.
st. = s o - S ° a , (14)

where S is the Markstein number and a is the

250- t,,. ........ I
o Tu = 800 [K] Fuel:methanol • =1 stretch rate, which is equivalent to the relative
time rate of change of flame surface area. All
[cm/s] 200
these quantities, but in particular the Mark-
o"-70o stein length ~ , are defined here with respect
150
to the unburnt mixture. The ratio of the Mark-
stein A'~ to the flame thickness f F is defined
1130 ~ 2 ,,~......,..,.....~~-,~.,~ as the Markstein number. In these analyses,
the stretch rate is the sum of stretch due to
50 o._..29]~ strain rate and due to flame curvature. Their
analysis was based on a one-step reaction with
0 I . . . . . . . . I ' ' ' a large activation energy and constant trans-
1 10 port coefficients. A similar asymptotic analysis
p [bar]
was performed by Rogg and Peters [11] for a
Fig. 6. Burning velocities of methanol at • = 1 as a
function of pressure and preheat temperature. Circles
strained m e t h a n e - a i r flame based on the re-
denote numerically calculated burning velocities and solid duced four-step mechanism. For the special
lines, analytic approximations. case of constant transport properties, they ob-
354 M U L L E R ET AL.

tain for the Markstein number the expression compensated when the preheat temperature
increases at the same time. A similar increase
_~ I+A
Ma was found in the asymptotic study of methane
4 a flames [16], where T O was calculated directly
and not assumed to be independent of equiva-
[ Ze (Le - 1) f0a In(1 + x) ] lence ratio.
× In(1 + A ) + 2 Le x dx .
The Lewis number to be used in Eq. 15 has
been determined by plotting the polynary dif-
(15)
fusion coefficient of the fuel with respect to
Here, A is defined as the mixture over the spatial coordinate within
the flame structure. These values typically de-
T ° - T, viate from the value in the unburnt gas by not
A (16)
L more than 3%. The values in the unburnt gas
have been listed in Table 2. The dependence
The expression for the Markstein number is of the Markstein number on this choice is
similar to the one that had been derived in weak, except for methane, where a small devia-
Ref. 2 for a Lewis number close to unity, tion from the value Le = 0.91 would result in
assuming a one-step mechanism with a large considerable changes of the Markstein num-
activation energy. Here, however, the effective ber.
Zel'dovich number, defined in Ref. 10,
Th- L
Ze = 4 - - (17) 5. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED
Th - T O' MARKSTEIN NUMBERS WITH
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
is not assumed, but depends on pressure, pre-
heat temperature, and equivalence ratio. It can There exists a limited amount of experimental
be calculated very easily using the approxima- data [17-20] for atmospheric flames of CH 4,
tions 10 and 13. Figure 8 shows an evaluation C2H4, CsH6, and C3H 8 with air. These exper-
of Eq. 17 for iso-octane at Tu = 300 K, for imentally determined Markstein numbers are
p = 1 bar and 10 bar and at T , = 5 0 0 K, compared with the predicted valued in Figs.
p = 10 bar over equivalence ratio. It is seen 9-12. It is seen that the measured values differ
that the effective Zel'dovich number increases considerably among themselves. This may be
strongly with decreasing equivalence ratio and due to the different experimental methods used
increasing pressure, but this effect is partly to obtain these data. In fact, it is well known
from theoretical analyses including noncon-
18 I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... stant transport coefficients, heat losses [21],
bar
and transient pressure effects [22] that there is
, Z3ooK:.: ';=
""I:P~ Tu = 300 K,p = l
16- not a unique Markstein length for flow diver-
gence and curvature effects, if these secondary
14-
influences are taken into account. For methane
Ze 12-
and for ethylene flames, the predicted numbers
presented in Figs. 9 and 10 may be considered
10- a compromise between the scattered experi-
mental data, while for ethane and propane,
8- presented in Figs. 11 and 12, they are signifi-
cantly higher than the data. For the latter two
6 .... i .... t .... iI . . . . i .... i , , i
fuels, the Lewis numbers differ from unity by a
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 l.i
larger amount than for methane and ethylene.
Fig. 8. Examples of effectiveZel'dovichnumbers for iso- Therefore, the underlying assumption that led
octane at different pressures and preheat temperatures, to Eq. 15, namely that the small difference of
calculated from Eqs. 10 and 17. the Lewis number from unity times the large
A P P R O X I M A T I O N S F O R B U R N I N G V E L O C I T I E S AND M A R K S T E I N N U M B E R S 355

6 I I f I f to ,,I,,, I,,, I,,,I,,,I,,,

Fuel: methane Fuel: propane
Ma Ma
• • • 8 •

4, •
° "-C--..---..-..()
O
o

4- • •
---o--- Calculation
-2 - • • Searby et al. [171 Calculation ° Taylor [20]
2-
A Tseng et al. [181 • Searby ct al. [17] • Deshaies et al. [19]
• Taylor [20] • Tseng ctal. [18]
-4 I t ' I i 0 ' ' I' ' '[''' I' ' 'l' ''1 ' ''
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1A 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 I 1.1

Fig. 9. C o m p a r i s o n of c a l c u l a t e d and e x p e r i m e n t a l M a r k - Fig. 12. C o m p a r i s o n of c a l c u l a t e d a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l Mark-

stein n u m b e r s for m e t h a n e at p = 1 bar and a p r e h e a t stein n u m b e r s for p r o p a n e at p = 1 b a r and a p r e h e a t
t e m p e r a t u r e of 300 K as a function of e q u i v a l e n c e ratio. t e m p e r a t u r e of 298 K as a function of e q u i v a l e n c e ratio.

-,,,I,,,I,,,I,,,I,,,t,,, effective Zel'dovich number are of order unity,

Ma Fuel: ethylene may no longer be valid.

• •
• • •
6. PREDICTION OF MARKSTEIN
NUMBERS AT ELEVATED PRESSURES

It is interesting to use the present approxima-

tions in order to estimate the influence of
I
I
I "'<>'-- Calculation • Tscng et al. [181 [
higher-than-atmospheric pressures on the
Markstein number. As examples, we choose
I • Searby et al. [17] 4, Taylor [201
, , , ii , , ,
I methane and iso-octane. Markstein numbers
o , , , I ~,,',,,,', ,,, I
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 for methane are plotted in Fig. 13 for different
pressures as a function of equivalence ratio.
Fig. 10. C o m p a r i s o n of c a l c u l a t e d and e x p e r i m e n t a l Mark- They are positive for stoichiometric mixtures,
stein n u m b e r s for e t h y l e n e at p = 1 bar a n d a p r e h e a t
but since the Lewis number is smaller than
t e m p e r a t u r e of 298 K as a function of e q u i v a l e n c e ratio.
unity in this case, negative values are calcu-
lated for lean mixtures at higher pressures.
This points toward cellular instabilities as for
Ma 6 - ~ lean hydrogen flames. Such instabilities have
5- already been observed for lean methane flames
at elevated pressures [23].
4- • • • Recent numerical calculations of spherical
methane flames by Bradley et al. [25] have
3-
resulted in negative values for Markstein num-
2- •
bers related to the strain rate and positive
values for those related to curvature. On the
• [ --<>---- Calculation
1- l • Tseng et al. [ 18] other hand, since the Lewis numbers are larger
• Taylor [20] than unity for all other lean fuels considered
0 here, the Markstein numbers are positive and
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
cI,
increase for leaner mixtures and higher pres-
sures. This is shown in Fig. 14 for iso-octane
Fig. 11. C o m p a r i s o n of c a l c u l a t e d and e x p e r i m e n t a l M a r k -
stein n u m b e r s for e t h a n e at p = 1 b a r and a p r e h e a t flames, where large positive Markstein num-
t e m p e r a t u r e of 298 K as a function of e q u i v a l e n c e ratio. bers are predicted for lean mixtures.
356 MULLER E T AL.

1.0 ,,.I.., I,,,I,,,I,,.I,,, 9. The authors wish to thank Dr. Goettgens for
providing the numerical tools for the approxima-
0.0- tions of the data.
0,5 10"/¢r /

REFERENCES
-2.0 - 1. G6ttgens, J., Maug, F., and Peters, N., Twenty-Fourth
p = 40 [barl Symposium (International) on Combustion, The Com-
~3Q0 I
/ bustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1992, pp. 129-135.
2. Clavin, P., and Williams, F. A., J. Fluid Mech. 116:251,
/ Fuel: methane Tu= 298 [K] (1982).
-4.o . . . . t. . I'''','''',''' I''' 3. Pelce, P., and Clavin, P., J. Fluid Mech. 124:219
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 l.l (1982).
4 Matalon, M., and Matkowsky, B. J., J. Fluid Mech.
Fig. 13. Predicted Markstein numbers for methane at T, 124:239 (1982).
= 298 K as a function of equivalence ratio and pressure. 5. Bradley, D., Gaskell, P. H., and Gu, X. J., Combust.
Flame 104:176 (1996).
30 ,%,,,I,,,I,,,1,,,I. 6. Rogg, B., and Peters, N., Combust. Flame 79:402
Ma ~ Fuel: iso-octane Tu-- 298 [KI (1990).
25-

20
,\
10 - °"""1~
5 ' I ' ' ' l ' ' ' l ' ' ' l ' ' ' l '
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 68:185 (1987).
q~
Fig. 14. Predicted Markstein numbers for iso-octane at
T, = 298 K as a function of equivalence ratio and pres-
sure.
7. C O N C L U S I O N S
Approximations of calculated burning veloci-
ties for lean hydrocarbon and methanol flames
allow prediction of these data for a wide range
of pressures and preheat temperatures. They
also provide a means to calculate Markstein
numbers that may serve as a first estimate to
be used in numerical calculations for turbulent
flames. Measured trends of Markstein num-
bers with equivalence ratio, namely the in-
crease for methane and the decrease for ethy-
lene, ethane, and propane flames, are well
predicted, while the values are overpredicted
for ethane and propane since their Lewis num-
bers differ from unity by too large an amount.
This work was supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgesellschaft under Grant No. Pe 241 /
7. Gibbs, G. J., and Calcote, H. F., J. Chem. Eng. Data
4:226 (1959).
8. Metghalchi, M., and Keck, J., Combust. Flame 48:191
(1982).
9. Bradley, D., El-Din Habik, S., and E1-Sherif, S. A.,
Combust. Flame 87:336-346 (1982).
10. Peters, N., and Rogg, B., (Eds.) Reduced Kinetic
Mechanisms for Applications in Combustion Systems,
Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Heidelburg, mlY,
1993.
11. Peters, N., and Williams, F. A., Combust. Flame
12. Peters, N., AbschluBbericht zum DFG Forschungs-
vorhaben Pe 241/9-2, Turbulente Brenngeschwin-
digkeit, Aachen, 1994, available on the World-Wide
W e b at http://www.itm.rwth-aachen.de.
13. Oran, E., and Boris, J., Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.
7:1 (1982).
14. Yang, B., Seshadri, K., and Peters, N., Combust. Flame
91:382 (1992).
15. Seshadri, K., Bollig, M., and Peters, N., Combust.
Flame, submitted for publication.
16. Seshadri, K., G6ttgens, J., Reduced Kinetic Mecha-
nisms and Applications for Methane-Flames. Lecture
Notes in Physics, (M. D. Smooke, Ed.), 384, Springer,
1991.
17. Searby, G., and Quinard, J., Combust. Flame 82:298
(1990).
18. Tseng, L.-K., Ismail, M. A., and Faeth, G. M., Com-
bust. Flame 95:410 (1993).
19. Deshaies, B., and Cambray, P., Combust. Flame 82:361
(1990).
20. Taylor, S. C., Ph.D thesis, University of Leeds, 1991.
21. Clavin, P., and Nicoli, C., Combust. Flame 60:1 (1985).
22. Keller, D., and Peters, N., Theoret. Comput. Fluid
Dynamics 6:141 (1994).
23. Kawakami, T., and Okajima, S. Archit,um Combustio-
nis 13:15 (1993).