Laser Diagnostics and Their Interplay With Computations To Understand Turbulent Combustion - ROBERT

Outline
¾ Introduction
¾ Overview of the TNF Workshop

• Target flames and combustion phenomena
¾ Laser diagnostic examples and issues

• Combined diagnostics
¾ Selected topics Note: This version of the presentation

• Differential diffusion includes a few extra slides but does not
• Spatial resolution include any of the animated content
• Small-scale turbulence from the August 9, 2006 lecture.
¾ Challenges and opportunities
¾ Acknowledgements
31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

Basic Science Foundation for Predictive Models
Device Validation
Experiments
Detailed Device
Models
• e.g. IC Engine, Device Engineering Models and Optimization Tools
Gas Turbine, Boiler
Sub-Model Validation
Detailed Device Sub-Models
Experiments
• e.g. Atomization, Ignition, Soot
Interplay of Laser Diagnostics

Chemical Dynamics
RANS and LES and Computation (Theory)
of Experimental Flames
Spectroscopy and
Diagnostic Development
Lab-Scale Turbulent
Flames Experiments
Laminar Experiments
and Simulations
Kinetic Experiments
Mechanistic Experiments
DNS: Time-Dependent,
Multi-Dimensional Mechanism Development
Mechanism Reduction
Basic Science Foundation for Predictive Combustion Models

Turbulence–Chemistry Interaction: A Central Challenge
¾ Coupling of chemistry and fluid dynamics Jet Engine

Combustor
¾ Determines flame stability, efficiency, emissions

¾ Advanced designs push to the edge of stable combustion
¾ Predictive combustion models must capture the fundamental physics
of turbulence–chemistry interactions

Strategy for Validation of Turbulence-Chemistry Models
Focus on nonpremixed and partially premixed flames complex

geometry practical
complex
Simple Jet Piloted Bluff Body Swirl Lifted kinetics combustion
systems
turb/chem
spray
instabilities pressure
scaling
particulates
¾ Progression of well documented cases that address the

fundamental science of turbulent flow, transport, and chemistry
Background
¾ “Strahle Report”, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 12 (1986) 253-405

• Committee to evaluate data on simple turbulent reacting flows
• Identify data sets for subsequent comparison with combustion models
¾ Conclusion:
• None of the available data sets were appropriate for model validation
• Computational effort to compare methods should not be initiated at that time
• “This is not an indictment of the turbulent reacting flows experimental community.

Most of the work reviewed was never intended to act as a data base to test models
and computational accuracy; they were often intended to test specific physical
hypotheses or provide exploratory data.” W.C. Strahle, 1986
¾ Experiments that are not designed for model validation are unlikely to be useful
for that purpose
¾ Significant progress since Strahle Report, especially past 10 years

R.W. Dibble and R.W. Bilger in the TDF Lab (early 1980’s)

Data Needs for Turbulent Combustion Model Validation
¾ Experiments designed to isolate specific phenomena (combustion submodels)

• Burner configuration and flame conditions
• Parametric variation (especially when close to condition of instability)
¾ Well documented boundary conditions!!!

• Compatible with capabilities of models
• Weak link in many laser diagnostic experiments
¾ Point statistics of velocity and multiple scalars (T, species)

• Temporally and spatially resolved
• Many locations in the flame
• Sample size sufficient for statistical comparison with models
¾ Spatial structure and dynamics (1D, 2D & 3D imaging; time series)

• Turbulence spectra, length scales, local flame orientation, flame curvature,
velocity & scalar gradients, vorticity, strain rate, scalar dissipation rate,
local extinction dynamics, lifted flame structure, velocity-scalar correlations
¾ Essential ingredients:
• Consultation with modelers during experimental design
• Collaborations to apply complementary diagnostics to the same target flames

TNF Workshop Series
¾ International Workshop on Measurement and Computation of Turbulent

Nonpremixed Flames (since 1996)
¾ Collaboration of experimental and computational researchers

• Core groups: Sandia, Berkeley, Cornell, TU Darmstadt, Imperial College, U Sydney
• Framework for detailed comparisons of measured and modeled results
• Identify gaps in data and models, define research priorities
¾ Emphasis on fundamental issues of turbulence-chemistry interaction

• Nonpremixed and partially premixed flames of simple fuels (H2, CO, CH4)
• Progression in complexity of flow field and kinetics
• Public (web-based) availability of data sets and comparisons
• Primary basis (so far) Æ point statistics from Raman/Rayleigh/LIF and LDV
Naples Heppenheim Boulder Darmstadt Delft Sapporo Chicago Heidelberg
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006

Gallery of Turbulent Flame Examples
¾ Figure 1
¾ a, b Simple jet flames
¾ c, d Piloted jet flames
¾ e Bluff-body
¾ f Bluff-body/Swirl
¾ g Lifted flame in vitiated coflow
¾ h Opposed jet flame
¾ i Unconfined swirl flame
¾ j Enclosed swirl flame
¾ k Premixed low-swirl flame
¾ l Premixed swirl, bluff-body
¾ m Enclosed premixed swirl flame
¾ n Premixed jet in vitiated coflow
¾ References in the paper

TNF Target Flames and Phenomena (1 of 4)
¾ Simple H2 jet flames (starting point)
• H2/N2 (TU Darmstadt, DLR-Suttgart)
• H2, H2/He (Sandia, ETH-Zurich)
• Range of chemical time scales
• radical shuffle < radical recombination < NO formation
¾ CH4/H2/N2 (DLR-Stuttgart, Sandia, TU Darmstadt,

Lund Univ, Purdue, UT Austin…)
H2 CH4/H2/N2 • CH4 chemistry; many different laser diagnostics applied
¾ Piloted jet flames – Sydney burner design

• CH4/air (Sandia, TU Darmstadt)
• CH4/H2/air (Sandia, Imperial College)
¾ Stabilized by premixed pilot flame, flow geometry still simple
¾ Local extinction and re-ignition
¾ Many different modeling approaches and submodels tested

(turbulence, chemistry, mixing, radiation)
CH4/air .
¾ Bluff-Body Stabilized
T (K)
¾ Sydney University, Sandia
¾ High velocity coflow, central fuel jet
¾ Flow recirculation
¾ CH4/H2, CH4/air, CO/H2
LES results provided by Venkat Raman, UT Austin

¾ Bluff-Body Stabilized
¾ Sydney University, Sandia
¾ High velocity coflow, central fuel jet
¾ Flow recirculation
¾ CH4/H2, CH4/air, CO/H2
Comparisons of measured and

modeled results on the Sydney
Bluff-Body and Swirl flames
coordinated by Andreas Kempf
at the TNF8 Workshop
¾ Swirl/Bluff-Body
¾ Sydney Univ., Sandia
¾ Large-scale instability
¾ Vortex breakdown
¾ CH4, CH4/air, CH4/H2

¾ Lifted flame in vitiated coflow

¾ Berkeley, Sydney, Sandia
¾ Jet composition: H2/N2, CH4/air
¾ Stabilization by hot products,
no recirculation
¾ Auto-ignition
¾ Liftoff height very sensitive to coflow T
Cao et al. Combust. Flame 142 (2005) 438-453.
¾ Turbulent opposed jets

¾ TU Darmstadt
¾ CH4/air (partially premixed)
¾ Different mixing characteristics

compared to jet flames
¾ Simple concept / complex burner
¾ Excellent example of burner

design and b.c. measurements
coupled with computation
D. Geyer, A. Kempf, A. Dreizler, J. Janicka, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005) 681-690,

Combust. Flame 143 (2005) 524-548.
TNF Target Flames and Phenomena (4.5 of 4)
¾ Flame luminosity + planar imaging of

Mie scattering
¾ Diode-pumped Nd:YAG laser (10 kHz)
¾ High-speed CMOS camera (1 kHz)
¾ Local extinction near center causes

blowout
¾ Expect more high-speed diagnostics in

Montreal
provided by Andreas Dreizler, TU Darmstadt

Definitions for Nonpremixed Flames: Mixture Fraction
Mixture fraction:
“Fraction of mass in a sample that originated from the nozzle”
Definition proposed by Bilger, adopted by TNF Workshop
2(YC − YC , 2 ) / wC + (YH − YH , 2 ) / 2 wH − (YO − YO , 2 ) / wO

ξ=
2(YC ,1 − YC , 2 ) / wC + (YH ,1 − YH , 2 ) / 2 wH − (YO ,1 − YO , 2 ) / wO
Fuel
ξ =1
Determined from mass fractions of species Air
ξ =0
Mixture fraction quantifies

2 1
the state of fuel-air mixing
Mixture fraction, ξ

Definitions for Nonpremixed Flames: Scalar Dissipation
¾ Reactants must be mixed at the molecular level by diffusion

• Turbulent “stirring” occurs over wide range of length scales
• Molecular mixing occurs mainly at the smallest scales, “dissipation range”
¾ Scalar dissipation rate (s-1)
[
χ = 2Dξ (∇ξ ⋅ ∇ξ ) = 2Dξ (∂ξ / ∂x)2 + (∂ξ / ∂y)2 + (∂ξ / ∂z)2 ]
mixture diffusivity
Scalar dissipation quantifies Central concept in combustion

the rate of molecular mixing theory and modeling
Hard to measure in
turbulent flames!

Local Extinction of a Laminar Flame
¾ Unsteady opposed-flow laminar flame

¾ Scalar dissipation rate determined by local fluid strain rate
fuel
~
OH PLIF sequence
~
air
Images provided by Jonathan Frank, Sandia

Dynamics of Local Flame Extinction
T (Rayleigh) OH (PLIF)
Time series of planar OH LIF images, Δt = 125 μm

Hult et al. (2000)
OH LIF marks velocity vectors local flame

reaction zone from PIV extinction
fuel
air
Bergmann et al. Appl. Phys. B (1998)
CH4/H2/N2 jet flame, “DLR flame”

Chemistry can’t keep up!
Experimental collaboration:
DLR-Stuttgart, Sandia, TU Darmstadt,
Purdue, Lund University, UT Austin

Laser Diagnostic Examples
¾ Need for simultaneous measurements Æ complex experiments
¾ Need for complete data Æ complementary experiments on the same

“standard” flames

Simultaneous Raman/Rayleigh/LIF Point Measurements
¾ Partially premixed jet:
• 25% CH4, 75% air
• 7.2 mm jet diameter
Flame Rej uexit (m/s)
C 13,400 38
x/d =45
D 22,400 64
E 33,600 96
F 44,800 128
Premixed Pilot Flame

x/d =30
¾ Turbulent Diffusion Flame (TDF) Laboratory,

Sandia CRF (1995-2001)
¾ T, N2, O2, CH4, H2, H2O, CO2, CO, OH, NO x/d =15
¾ Resolution ~0.75 mm
x/d =7.5
¾ Diagnostic synergy
laser x/d = 2
¾ Similar Raman/Rayleigh/LIF systems at axis
TU Darmstadt and DLR-Stuttgart Reynolds number: Rej = uexit d/ν
¾ Turbulent Diffusion Flame (TDF) Laboratory,

Sandia CRF (1995-2001)
¾ T, N2, O2, CH4, H2, H2O, CO2, CO, OH, NO
¾ Resolution ~0.75 mm
¾ Diagnostic synergy
¾ Similar Raman/Rayleigh/LIF systems at
Mixture fraction Mixture fraction
TU Darmstadt and DLR-Stuttgart Comparisons from TNF3, Boulder 1998
¾ Laminar opp-flow CH4/air flames
• Experiments vs. calculations
• Several detailed and reduced mechanisms
• NO formation, radiation effects
• Conclusion: CH4 chemistry not the problem
¾ Current status:
• Flame D – several modeling approaches
yield very good agreement w/ experiments
• Flames E,F (extinction) Æ much smaller list
• Good understanding of model sensitivities
¾ Diagnostic focus Æ scalar dissipation

Recap on the Interplay of Diagnostics and Computation
1. Piloted burner Æ Simple geometry, well defined bc’s
2. Modelers consulted on experimental details
3. Target phenomenon Æ local extinction
4. Parametric variation (jet velocity)
5. Complementary data through collaborations (scalars, velocity*, radiation**, …)
6. Comparison among several models
7. Parametric studies of model sensitivities
8. Iterations over time, including new data and models
*LDV from TU Darmstadt, **Radiation in collaboration with Purdue [refs in paper]

Line Imaging of Raman/Rayleigh/CO-LIF
Combined measurement:
¾ T, N2, O2, CH4, CO2, H2O, H2, CO
¾ 200-μm spacing, 6-mm segment
¾ mixture fraction (state of mixing)
¾ scalar dissipation (1D, rate of mixing)
Barlow & Karpetis, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005)
¾ T, N2, O2, CH4, CO2, H2O, H2, CO
YCO2
Flam
elet
te nt
χ ξ
¾ T, N2, O2, CH4, CO2, H2O, H2, CO
Line Raman/Rayleigh/CO-LIF & Crossed OH PLIF
Image reaction zone in two
intersecting planes
¾ T, N2, O2, CH4, CO2, H2O, H2, CO
¾ mixture fraction
¾ local flame orientation
¾ scalar dissipation (3D, estimated)
Karpetis & Barlow, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005)
Simultaneous Planar Imaging: Scalar Dissipation
¾ Temperature, T
¾ Mixture fraction, ξ
¾ Forward reaction rate, [CO] + [OH] Æ [CO2] + [H]
¾ Scalar dissipation, χ
J.H. Frank, S.A. Kaiser, M.B. Long, Combust. Flame 143 (2005) 507-523.
Simultaneous Planar Imaging: Lifted Flame Structure
Rayleigh CH2O LIF
PAH LIF OH LIPF
Composite
A. Joedicke, N. Peters, M. Mansour, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005) 901-909.

Simultaneous Planar Imaging: Lifted Flame Structure
Rayleigh CH2O LIF
PAH LIF OH LIPF
At larger liftoff high the turbulent

edge flame becomes highly
convoluted
A. Joedicke, N. Peters, M. Mansour, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005) 901-909.

Simultaneous PIV and PLIF: Flow-Flame Interaction
CH
¾ 2D velocity and derivative fields (strain, dilatation, vorticity)

¾ Relationships to reaction zone (CH and/or OH PLIF)
¾ System also applied to lifted flames
P.S. Kothnur, M.S. Tsurikov, N.T. Clemens, J.M. Donbar, C.D. Carter, Proc. Combust. Inst. 29 (2002) 1921-1927.
K.A. Watson, K.M. Lyons, C.D. Carter, J.M. Donbar, Proc. Combust. Inst. 29 (2002) 1905-1912.
Inclined Structures in Experiments and LES
Scalar dissipation in 2D images Scalar dissipation in Large Eddy Simulations
from Andreas Kempf from Heinz Pitsch
Frank, Kaiser, Long,

Combust. Flame 143
(2005) 507-523
Piloted Flame D
¾ Suggests direct coupling of large and small scales (discussion in the paper)
¾ May be important for local extinction and differential diffusion
High-Speed Multi-Frame OH PLIF Imaging + Stereo PIV
DLR-B
Six Frames of OH PLIF, Δt = 30 μs Strain Rate CH4/H2/N2
OH
outline
J. Hult, U. Meier, W. Meier, A. Harvey, C.F. Kaminski, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005) 701-709.
Simultaneous PIV and Filtered Rayleigh Scattering
Velocity and T
¾ Velocity and Temperature
¾ Applied in premixed bluff-body flame
¾ Turbulent flux of progress variable
photo detector 2 FRS camera
molecular filter cell 2
th n g
b a p e ri
photo detector 1
m
te molecular
Nd:Y filter cell Vorticity and T Contours
2ν s AG lase 1
ingle r beam
mod PIV camera
e sampler
optic lens
s
beam
Nd:Y splitter
AG laser light
shee
2ν t
tuning mirror flow beam dump
D. Most, F. Dinkelacker, A. Leipertz, Proc. Combust. Inst. 29 (2002) 2669-2677.

Selected Topics
¾ Differential diffusion
¾ Spatial resolution of laser diagnostics
¾ Length scales and small-scale structure in turbulent flames

Differential Diffusion
¾ Modeling assumption: Elemental mixture fractions for H and C

Turbulent transport dominates
DLR-B, CH4/H2/N2
so diff-diff can be neglected (Le = 1)
Re = 22,800
¾ Well known from experiments:

Diff-diff can be important in lab-scale jet
flames (low Re, close to jet exit, fuel
mixtures with H2 )
laminar
calc.
equal
diffusivity
stoich. line

Differential Diffusion in Lab-Scale Piloted Flames
¾ Compare experiment vs. laminar flame calcs.

Piloted CH4 /air Flames
Rej = 8200
• Experiment symbols
• Chemkin transport ( )
• Le=1 ( )
¾ Lindstedt et al. (FTC 2004) PDF calc’s:

• Good agreement on flames D and F Rej = 33,600
• Over predict YH2 in flame B
¾ Detailed measurements allow more complete

interpretation of exp/model comparisons

Limitations of Lab-Scale Jet Flames

Spatial Resolution of Laser Diagnostics
¾ Experimental resolution determined by hardware setup, optics (including the

flame), detectors, data processing
¾ What can be achieved (roughly) in well designed experiments:

• Rayleigh scattering 50-100 μm
• Raman scattering 200-300 μm
• CO LIF 150-300 μm No Moore’s law for
• OH LIF (linear) 150-500 μm laser diagnostics
• NO LIF (linear) 300-500 μm
• PIV 250-500 μm
¾ Relative resolution = (actual) / (needed to make the intended measurement)

• Trade-off: better resolution Æ lower SNR
• Depends on length scales of turbulent fluctuations in the quantity of interest
“You can’t always get what you want ...”

Length Scales in Turbulence
¾ “Smallest” length scales of turbulent fluctuations in velocity and scalars:
Kolmogorov scale, η Batchelor scale, λB
kinematic mean rate of kinetic mass Schmidt number

viscosity energy dissipation diffusivity Sc = ν/D
¾ For gaseous flows and flames: Sc ∼ 1 then η ∼ λB

¾ Velocity (scalar) fluctuations near these length scales are rapidly damped by
viscosity (diffusion) and must be fed by “energy” from larger scales.
¾ Determined by local flow properties Æ Difficult to estimate η, λB in reacting flows
¾ Recent work to measure λB in flames
Recent Progress: Rayleigh Measurements in DLR Flames
¾ Time-series, 10 kHz, 71 W diode-pumped Nd:YAG laser1

¾ Highly-resolved Rayleigh line imaging2
¾ Spectral analysis of 1D images to determine local cutoff scale = 2πλΒ
time series
imaging
measured
x/d=10
1 G.-H. Wang, N.T. Clemens, P.L. Varghese, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005). κ 1 * = κ 1λ Β = 1
2 G.-H. Wang, N.T. Clemens, R.S. Barlow, Proc. Combust. Inst. 31 (2006).
Experimentally Determined Length Scales
Rejj = 15,200 Rej = 30,000 Rej = 150,000
λB ∝ Reδ−3 / 4
λΒ ~ 0.120 mm (x/d=20)
λΒ ~ 0.056 mm
λΒ ~ 0.092 mm (x/d=10)
λΒ ~ 0.105 mm
For Scalar Dissipation:

DLR-A Physical wavelength = 2πλB
Wang et al. (2006) Nyquist Æ ~3λB Clemens et al. Combust. Flame (1997)
OH PLIF images from H2 jet flames
Model 1D Energy and Dissipation Spectra
larger smaller
small
Rej = 30,000 Rej = 150,000
κ1 * = κ1 η = 1
¾ Model spectrum (Pope, Turbulent Flows, 2000)

¾ Cutoff κ*1 = 1; Length scales: η = 1/κη or λΒ = 1/κB
Clemens et al. Combust. Flame (1997)
OH PLIF images from H2 jet flames
¾ Physical wavelength is 2πκη or 2πλB

Recent Progress: Measuring the Dissipation Scales
¾ Highly-resolved 2D Rayleigh imaging

¾ Structure of dissipation layers DLR-A, CH4/H2/N2
Re = 15,200
S.A. Kaiser, J.H. Frank, Proc. Combust. Inst. 31 (2006). x/d = 10
Challenges and Opportunities
¾ Expand basis for quantitative model validation beyond point statistics

• Include imaging, high-speed diagnostics
• Much larger data sets
• More difficult to define criteria for comparisons
¾ Use computation to compare similar experiments
¾ Use computation to reduce measurement complexity, uncertainty

• Calculate “signals” from computed fields (e.g., Rayleigh signal, LIF signal)
• Compare results to experimental signals
¾ Progressively extend validation cases to more complex flames, phenomena
¾ Revisit “standard” flames as new diagnostics and models are developed
¾ All will require close collaboration among experimental and computational

researchers

Summary: Interplay of Laser Diagnostics and Computation
¾ Significant progress in understanding of turbulence-chemistry

interaction in nonpremixed and partially-premixed flames
• Collaborative comparison of experiment and computation
• Systematic progression and iteration
• Validation experiments Æ rich source of fundamental insight
¾ Laser diagnostic achievements

• Detailed data on several target flames
• Very good data quality from mature diagnostics
• Small-scale turbulence, scalar dissipation
• Expanding list of diagnostics applied to “standard” flames
¾ Rapid advances in computer power

Æ increasingly dynamic interaction with experiments
¾ Need to accelerate the pace toward predictive models!

Acknowledgements
¾ Experimental coworkers, collaborators and visitors:

• M. Boisselle, C. Carter, Y.-L. Chen, N. Clemens, B. Dally, R. Dibble, A. Dreizler,
J. Frank, G. Fiechtner, D. Geyer, J. Gore, R. Harmon, E. Hassel, P. Kalt,
A. Karpetis, A. Masri, W. Meier, P. Miles, V. Nguyen, P. Nooren, H. Ozarovsky,
T. Settersten, L. Smith, S. Stårner, C. Tong, G.-H. Wang
¾ Primary advisors on combustion modeling issues:

• R. Bilger, J.-Y. Chen, J. Janicka, P. Lindstedt, J. Oefelein, H. Pitsch, S. Pope
¾ Many TNF Workshop participants

Thank You
¾ Sponsor:
• U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences,
Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences

Laser Diagnostics and Their Interplay With Computations To Understand Turbulent Combustion - ROBERT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laser Diagnostics and Their Interplay With Computations To Understand Turbulent Combustion - ROBERT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Outline

¾ Overview of the TNF Workshop

¾ Laser diagnostic examples and issues

¾ Selected topics Note: This version of the presentation

¾ Challenges and opportunities

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

Interplay of Laser Diagnostics

Basic Science Foundation for Predictive Combustion Models

¾ Coupling of chemistry and fluid dynamics Jet Engine

¾ Determines flame stability, efficiency, emissions

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

Focus on nonpremixed and partially premixed flames complex

¾ Progression of well documented cases that address the

¾ “Strahle Report”, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 12 (1986) 253-405

• “This is not an indictment of the turbulent reacting flows experimental community.

¾ Significant progress since Strahle Report, especially past 10 years

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

¾ Experiments designed to isolate specific phenomena (combustion submodels)

¾ Well documented boundary conditions!!!

¾ Point statistics of velocity and multiple scalars (T, species)

¾ Spatial structure and dynamics (1D, 2D & 3D imaging; time series)

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

¾ International Workshop on Measurement and Computation of Turbulent

¾ Collaboration of experimental and computational researchers

¾ Emphasis on fundamental issues of turbulence-chemistry interaction

Naples Heppenheim Boulder Darmstadt Delft Sapporo Chicago Heidelberg

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006

¾ References in the paper

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

¾ CH4/H2/N2 (DLR-Stuttgart, Sandia, TU Darmstadt,

¾ Piloted jet flames – Sydney burner design

¾ Stabilized by premixed pilot flame, flow geometry still simple

¾ Local extinction and re-ignition

¾ Many different modeling approaches and submodels tested

LES results provided by Venkat Raman, UT Austin

Comparisons of measured and

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

¾ Lifted flame in vitiated coflow

¾ Turbulent opposed jets

¾ Different mixing characteristics

¾ Simple concept / complex burner

¾ Excellent example of burner

D. Geyer, A. Kempf, A. Dreizler, J. Janicka, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005) 681-690,

¾ Flame luminosity + planar imaging of

¾ Diode-pumped Nd:YAG laser (10 kHz)

¾ High-speed CMOS camera (1 kHz)

¾ Local extinction near center causes

¾ Expect more high-speed diagnostics in

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

“Fraction of mass in a sample that originated from the nozzle”

Definition proposed by Bilger, adopted by TNF Workshop

2(YC − YC , 2 ) / wC + (YH − YH , 2 ) / 2 wH − (YO − YO , 2 ) / wO

Mixture fraction quantifies

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

¾ Reactants must be mixed at the molecular level by diffusion

¾ Scalar dissipation rate (s-1)

Scalar dissipation quantifies Central concept in combustion

31st Combustion Symposium, 6-11 August 2006, Heidelberg, Germany

¾ Unsteady opposed-flow laminar flame

Images provided by Jonathan Frank, Sandia

Time series of planar OH LIF images, Δt = 125 μm