Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224

www.elsevier.com/locate/jnlabr/cnf
Zone conditional modeling of premixed turbulent ames
at a high Damkhler number
Eunju Lee, Kang Y. Huh

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang,

Kyungbuk 790-784, Republic of Korea
Received 1 August 2003; received in revised form 7 February 2004; accepted 2 May 2004
Available online 15 June 2004
Abstract
The zone conditioning approach is applied to generic mass and momentum conservation equations in unburned
and burned gas. Conditionally averaged equations include additional source terms with ame surface density to
reect interfacial transports between two zones. Zone conditional averaging does not involve countergradient dif-
fusion, which is due to description in terms of mixture properties in Favre averaging. Asymptotic analysis shows
that ame propagation characteristics are determined by gradient diffusion by turbulence and an externally im-
posed pressure gradient at the leading edge. Two-dimensional CFD simulations are performed for two typical
premixed turbulent ames stabilized in an impinging jet. With adjusted constants to match the c proles, condi-
tional axial velocities show good agreement with experimental data for the two test ames. The zone conditional
model provides an intuitive set of governing equations suitable for a solution procedure of premixed combustion
devices at a high Damkhler number.
2004 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Combustion Institute.
Keywords: Zone conditional averaging; Premixed turbulent ame; High Damkhler number; CFD simulation; Impinging jet
1. Introduction
Turbulent premixed combustion at a high Damkh-
ler number consists of two distinct zones, unburned
and fully burned gas, separated by thin stretched lam-
inar amelets. Most turbulent combustion models in-
cluding the BrayMossLibby formulation have been
based on Favre averaging in terms of mixture prop-
erties of burned and unburned gas. Although Favre
averaging produces the same form of governing equa-
tions as in nonreacting ow, they involve additional
complexities such as countergradient diffusion due to
large disparities between burned and unburned gas
properties. It was shown that countergradient trans-
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +82-54-279-3199.
E-mail address: huh@postech.ac.kr (K.Y. Huh).
port is of critical importance in the wrinkled amelet
regime at a relatively low turbulence Reynolds num-
ber [1]. There has been some confusion in the litera-
ture, however, since a spatial prole of the mean reac-
tion progress variable could be matched by arbitrarily
adjusting the reaction source term despite underpre-
dicted [2] or ignored [3] countergradient transport.
A more logical approach for turbulent premixed
combustion may be based on the conditionally aver-
aged equations in each zone with appropriate transfer
terms of mass, momentum, and energy through inter-
facial amelets. Although similar efforts have already
been made by a few investigators [4,5], no success-
ful results have been reported for realistic ames of a
large density ratio between burned and unburned gas.
Conditional averaging with respect to mixture frac-
tion has successfully been applied to turbulent non-
premixed combustion, including autoignition and ex-
0010-2180/$ see front matter 2004 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Combustion Institute.
doi:10.1016/j.combustame.2004.05.002
212 E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224
tinction, in which chemical and turbulence time scales
may be of a comparable order of magnitude [6]. In
this paper generic mass and momentum conservation
equations are conditionally averaged in each region
by the zone conditioning approach and a transport
equation for the Reynolds-averaged reaction progress
variable is derived and modeled to determine ame
propagation characteristics. Simple assumptions are
made for surface-averaged quantities and uctuation
correlation terms to close the c transport and con-
ditional mass and momentum equations. Conditional
ow properties are calculated by a CFD solution pro-
cedure and validated against measurements for two
typical turbulent premixed ames stabilized in an im-
pinging jet [7,8].
2. Zone conditional modeling
2.1. Zone conditional averaging
The main idea is to separate the instantaneous re-
action eld into three distinct zones; unburned ( =

u
), burned ( =
b
), and thin reaction zone (
b
<
<
u
). We introduce the Heaviside function dened
as
(1) H
c
(x, t , c) =H(c c

) =
_
1 if c(x, t ) c

,
0 otherwise,
where c

is usually set equal to 0.5. The iso-c surface

denes the ame surface which separates the zone of
c(x, t ) c

from the zone of c(x, t ) <c

. In the limit
of a high Damkhler number the reaction zone thick-
ness is less than any turbulence length scale and the
probability of 0 < c < 1 is negligibly small as com-
pared with the probability of c = 1 or c =0. Then the
expectation of H
c
and the Reynolds-averaged reac-
tion progress variable become identical, i.e.,
(2) H
c
c.
The overbar and notation with no subscript repre-
sent an unconditional ensemble average and may be
used interchangeably. For any quantity, , it holds
that
(3) H
c
= c
b
,
(4)
_
(1 H
c
)
_
=(1 c)
u
,
where
b
and
u
are the conditional averages in
burned and unburned zone. Dene that
(5)
i
=
i
+

i
,
where the subscript i can be any of u, b, su, or sb.
The notations, sb and su, represent the conditional
quantities in burned and unburned gas adjacent to the
Fig. 1. Illustration of an instantaneous reaction eld around
a amelet surface.
thin reaction zone as shown in Fig. 1. The prime nota-
tion may represent an unconditional or a conditional
uctuation according to the denition of the average.
It is important to understand that the two averages,

u
and
su
(or
b
and
sb
), may not nec-
essarily be equal to each other. When integrated over
volume, the former represents a volumetric average in
unburned (or burned) gas while the latter represents a
surface average on the unburned (or burned) side of
a ame surface. The conditional surface averages are
dened as
(6)
su
= lim

f
0
|c = 0 +,
(7)
sb
= lim

f
0
|c = 1 ,
where
f
is the reaction zone thickness dened as
0 + c 1 for a small positive number . The
conditional surface averages,
su
and
sb
, be-
come independent of c

or in the limiting condition

that
f
goes to zero. Conditional density uctuation is
ignored as negligible with constant
b
and
u
. Since
variable density and chemical reaction are conned to
the thin reaction zone, all reaction terms can be rep-
resented as simple interfacial transfer in terms of the
surface-average quantities, su or sb, on either side of
a ame surface.
2.2. Derivation of zone conditional governing
equations
The instantaneous local balance equations for a
premixed ame are written as
(8)

t
+ (v) = 0,
(9)

t
(v) + (vv) = p ,
(10)
c
t
+v c =S
d
|c|,
where is the shear stress tensor due to molecular
viscosity. Equation (10) is a balance equation for the
E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224 213
reaction progress variable dened as
(11) c =
T T
u
T
b
T
u
or c =
Y
F
Y
u
F
Y
b
F
Y
u
F
,
where T , T
u
, and T
b
are respectively local, unburned,
and burned gas temperatures. Y
F
, Y
u
F
, and Y
b
F
are the
fuel mass fractions of local, unburned, and burned
gas. The two denitions in Eq. (11) are equivalent
for a unity Lewis number and with no heat loss and
compressibility effects. Species and low Mach num-
ber energy equations, then, reduce to a single balance
equation for the reaction progress variable, Eq. (10).
Note that Eq. (10) is a propagative form in which the
displacement speed, S
d
, of the iso-c surface is intro-
duced as
(12) S
d
=
1

_
(Dc) +
|c|
_
.
Temporal and spatial derivatives of the Heaviside
function are given as
(13)
H(c c

)
t
=(c c

)
c
t
,
(14) H(c c

) =(c c

)c.
A balance equation for the Heaviside function H
c

can be derived from Eq. (10) as

(15)
H
c

t
+v H
c
=S
L
,
where S
d
is assumed to be equal to the laminar ame
speed S
L
. The instantaneous ame surface density
is dened as
(16) = |c|(c c

).
Taking an ensemble average of Eq. (15) we have a
transport equation for the Reynolds-averaged reaction
progress variable as
(17)
c
t
+ v
su
c = v

su
n

f
+S
Lu

f
,
where the ame surface density,
f
, is an ensem-
ble average of . In Eq. (17), the surface average of
,
s
, is dened as
s
= /
f
. The sur-
face averages here are taken to be on the unburned
side for easier modeling and interpretation in the fol-
lowing. It is, however, equally valid to write Eq. (17)
in terms of the surface averages on the burned side for
an innitesimally thin amelet. n is a unit normal vec-
tor on a ame surface toward the unburned side given
as
(18) n(x, t ) =
_
c/|c|
_
c=c

.
Note that H
c
= n. The laminar ame speed
S
Lu
is the displacement speed relative to adjacent un-
burned gas; i.e., v
s
= v
su
+ nS
Lu
where v
s
is the
velocity of the iso-c ame surface.
Conditionally averaged conservation equations
may be derived by averaging the instantaneous mass
and momentum equations multiplied by H
c
for
burned zone and by 1 H
c
for unburned zone. For
arbitrary a conditionally averaged conservation
equation in burned zone may be derived according
to the following procedure.
_
H
c

t
()
_
+
_
H
c
(v)
_
=
_

t
(H
c
)
_
+
_
(H
c
v)
_

_
H
c

t
+v H
c

__
=

t
_
c
b

b
_
+
_
c
b
v
b

b
_
(19) +
_
c
b
v

_

b

sb
S
Lb

f
,
where the laminar ame speed S
Lb
is the displace-
ment speed of a ame surface relative to adjacent
burned gas; i.e., v
s
= v
sb
+nS
Lb
. Note that
b
S
Lb
=

u
S
Lu
. The balance equation for the Heaviside func-
tion, Eq. (15), is used in the derivation of Eq. (19).
In a similar way a conditionally averaged equation in
unburned zone is derived by
_
(1 H
c
)

t
()
_
+
_
(1 H
c
) (v)
_
=
_

t
_
(1 H
c
)
_
_
+
_

_
(1 H
c
)v
__
+
_

_
H
c

t
+v H
c

__
=

t
_
(1 c)
u

u
_
+
_
(1 c)
u
v
u

u
_
(20)
+
_
(1 c)
u
v

_
+
u

su
S
Lu

f
.
The conditional pressure gradient term for burned gas
is given as
H
c
p =
_
(H
c
p)
_
pH
c

=
_
(H
c
p)
_
+ pn
(21) =
_
cp
b
_
+ pn
sb

f
.
Similarly for unburned gas, it holds that
_
(1 H
c
)p
_
=
_

_
(1 H
c
)p
__
+ pH
c

=
_

_
(1 H
c
)p
__
pn
(22) =
_
(1 c)p
u
_
pn
su

f
.
According to Eqs. (19), (20), (21), and (22) the con-
ditionally averaged continuity and momentum equa-
tions in burned and unburned gas are given as
(23)

t
( c
b
) +
_
c
b
v
b
_
=
b
S
Lb

f
,
214 E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224

t
_
(1 c)
u
_
+
_
(1 c)
u
v
u
_
(24) =
u
S
Lu

f
,

t
_
c
b
v
b
_
+
_
c
b
v
b
v
b
_
=
_
cp
b
_

_
c
b
v

b
v

_
(25) +
b
S
Lb
v
sb

f
pn
sb

f
,

t
_
(1 c)
u
v
u
_
+
_
(1 c)
u
v
u
v
u
_
=
_
(1 c)p
u
_

_
(1 c)
u
v

u
v

_
(26)
u
S
Lu
v
su

f
+ pn
su

f
,
where the shear stress on a ame surface is ignored in
comparison with the terms due to pressure difference
and momentum ux through a ame surface. The in-
terfacial transfer terms in Eqs. (23), (24), (25), and
(26) all involve the ame surface density and should
add up to zero to guarantee overall conservation as
follows:
(27)
b
S
Lb
=
u
S
Lu
,
(28)
b
S
Lb
v
sb
pn
sb
=
u
S
Lu
v
su
pn
su
.
Equations (27) and (28) represent mass and mo-
mentum balance for the reaction zone, because ame-
lets are assumed to be thin enough not to maintain any
inertia of their own. There are now ve equations,
Eqs. (17), (23), (24), (25), and (26), with ve major
unknowns, c, v
u
, v
b
, p
u
, and p
b
to form a
closed set. The interfacial terms involving the surface-
average velocities and pressures, v
su
, v
sb
, p
su
,
and p
sb
, need to be modeled in terms of the major
unknown variables.
2.3. Favre averaging vs zone conditional averaging
The Favre average conservation equations may
be obtained by adding the conditional conservation
equations in burned and unburned gas and the bal-
ance equation at interfaces between them. The Favre
average continuity equation corresponds to a sum of
the conditional continuity equations, Eqs. (23) and
(24), with the source terms canceling each other. The
Favre average momentum equation also corresponds
to a sum of the conditional momentum equations,
Eqs. (25) and (26), with the interfacial source terms
canceling each other. The mean convective ux of
the reaction progress variable, c, may be expressed
in terms of the burned conditional properties as
(29) vc = v c +v

= c
b
v
b
,
where the tilde notation represents a Favre average
and the double prime its uctuation. It is clear that
the turbulent ux of the reaction progress variable ap-
pears due to the formalism of Favre averaging and is
naturally taken into account in the conditional mean
convective ux in Eq. (29). The transport equation of
c, Eq. (17), is composed of three contributions; con-
vection by conditional surface-average velocity, dif-
fusion by uctuating velocity, and unit normal vector
and production by combustion reaction. In the BML
formulation the turbulent ux is expressed as [9]
(30) v

= c(1 c)
_
v
b
v
u
_
,
where the conditional velocities, v
b
and v
u
,
should be given from conditional mass and momen-
tum conservation with relevant state relationships and
boundary conditions. There is no need to model the
countergradient diffusion term in terms of mixture
properties in zone conditional averaging. In general
it is not a valid assumption that the mean slip veloc-
ity, v
b
v
u
, is equal to the slip of the conditional
surface velocities, v
sb
v
su
. The mean slip ve-
locity, v
b
v
u
, is known to have a negative sign
at both ends of a ame brush, while it is positive in
most ame regions where countergradient diffusion
occurs. The small region of gradient diffusion at the
leading edge is crucial in maintaining a stable turbu-
lent ame brush propagating at the turbulent burning
velocity [9]. The velocity difference, v
sb
v
su
(= n
s
S
Lu
), where (=
u
/
b
1) is the heat
release parameter, has a xed positive sign throughout
a ame brush.
2.4. Modeling of interfacial and turbulent transport
terms
Interfacial transfer terms include the unknown
quantities,
f
, v
su
, v
sb
, pn
su
, and pn
sb
, to
be modeled in terms of the volume averages, c, v
u
,
v
b
, p
u
, and p
b
. It is, however, difcult to model
theoretically or measure directly the surface-averaged
conditional velocities and pressures, v
su
, v
sb
,
p
su
, and p
sb
, as well as the uctuation correla-
tions, p

su
and p

sb
. Only DNS can provide
all the detailed information and their relationships
on these conditional averages. The DNS database in
this study is for a steady planar turbulent premixed
ame with a density ratio of
u
/
b
= 7.53 [10].
The computational domain is a three-dimensional box
of 8 4 4 mm containing 512 128 128 grid
points. The long dimension of 8 mm is in the stream-
wise direction (Fig. 2). The ame can be assumed as
one-dimensional in the streamwise direction and sta-
tistically homogeneous in the transverse directions.
It belongs to the thin reaction zone regime [11] with
a large Damkhler number, Da = 18.1. Detail ame
properties are listed in Table 1. Averages are taken
spatially over a surface normal to the propagation di-
rection as well as in time to collect a sufcient number
of data points for ensemble averaging.
E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224 215
Fig. 2. DNS simulation domain and coordinate system.
Table 1
Flame properties in DNS
a

u
/
b
7.53

l
[cm] 0.0217
S
0
Lu
[cm/s] 60
l
t
/
t
15.9
l
k
/
l
0.65
u

/S
0
Lu
0.88
Da 18.1
Ka 2.4
a
l
t
and l
k
are the integral length scale and Kolmogorov
length scale, respectively. Damkhler number and Karlovitz
number are calculated by Da = (l
t
/
l
)(S
0
Lu
/u

) and Ka =
(
l
/l
k
)
2
. The laminar ame thickness,
l
, is obtained
from the maximum temperature gradient
l
= (T
b
T
u
)/
max(dT/dx) at T
u
= 300 K.
Fig. 3. Variation of the Reynolds-averaged reaction progress
variable with respect to the streamwise coordinate.
Fig. 3 shows the Reynolds-averaged reaction
progress variable along the streamwise coordinate.
Fig. 4 shows the streamwise components of condi-
tional velocities in the c-space. The conditional veloc-
ities at the edges are not processed in Fig. 4 due to an
insufcient number of samples. The surface-average
velocities are smaller than the corresponding volume
averages in both unburned and burned gas. The dif-
ference between the surface and the volume average
velocities in burned gas decreases as c approaches
Fig. 4. Variation of the streamwise conditional velocity
components with respect to the Reynolds-averaged reaction
progress variable.
zero, where burned gas is likely to move together as a
small coherent packet. The difference in unburned gas
also decreases as c approaches unity, where unburned
gas is likely to move as a small coherent packet. It
may be deduced that the volume and surface averages
for unburned gas become identical as c goes to one
and the same occurs for burned gas as c goes to zero.
The pressure uctuation correlations, p

su
and
p

sb
, are ignored, although there is some uncer-
tainty due to a nite amelet thickness in the DNS
database. More investigation may be needed to check
the validity of this assumption for different ames
with or without an external pressure gradient. They
are different from the Reynolds-averaged pressure
uctuation termin Bray et al. [12], which involves not
only conditional uctuations in burned or unburned
region but also uctuations between the two different
regions. Interfacial pressure terms may now be writ-
ten as
pn
su

f
p
su
c,
(31) pn
sb

f
p
sb
c,
where the relationship n
s

f
= c is used. The
right-hand sides of the conditional momentum equa-
tions may be rewritten as
RHS
u
S
Lu
v
su

f

_
(1 c)p
u
_
+ p
su
n
s

f
=
u
S
Lu
v
u

f
. ,, .
I
(1 c)p
u
. ,, .
II
(32)

u
S
Lu
_
v
su
v
u
_

f

_
p
su
p
u
_
c
. ,, .
III
,
216 E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224
Fig. 5. Budget for the conditional momentum equation of
unburned gas: I =
u
S
Lu
v
u

f
, II = (1 c)p
u
,
III =
u
S
Lu
(v
su
v
u
)
f
(p
su
p
u
) c.
RHS
b
S
Lb
v
sb

f

_
cp
b
_
p
sb
n
s

f
=
b
S
Lb
v
b

f
. ,, .
I
cp
b
. ,, .
II
(33)
+
b
S
Lb
_
v
sb
v
b
_

f
+
_
p
sb
p
b
_
c
. ,, .
III
,
for unburned and burned gas, respectively. Condi-
tional Reynolds stress terms are omitted here, because
their magnitudes are much smaller than the other
transport terms in Eqs. (32) and (33). Each term in
Eqs. (32) and (33) is plotted in Figs. 5 and 6, where
the term III representing the effect of different sur-
face and volume average velocities and pressures is
negligibly small in comparison with the other two
terms.
The conditionally averaged momentum equations
now become

t
_
c
b
v
b
_
+
_
c
b
v
b
v
b
_
= cp
b

_
c
b
v

b
v

_
(34) +
b
S
Lb
v
b

f
,

t
_
(1 c)
u
v
u
_
+
_
(1 c)
u
v
u
v
u
_
= (1 c)p
u

_
(1 c)
u
v

u
v

_
(35)
u
S
Lu
v
u

f
,
where the surface-average velocities and pressures do
not appear. Turbulent transports in the momentum
equations are given as

b
v

b
v

b
=
b
t
_
v
b
+
_
v
b
_
T
_
(36)
2
3
_

b
k
b
+
b
t
v
b
_
I,
Fig. 6. Budget for the conditional momentum equation
of burned gas: I =
b
S
Lb
v
b

f
, II = cp
b
, III =

b
S
Lb
(v
sb
v
b
)
f
+(p
sb
p
b
) c.

u
v

u
v

u
=
u
t
_
v
u
+
_
v
u
_
T
_
(37)
2
3
_

u
k
u
+
u
t
v
u
_
I,
where I is a unit dyadic. k
b
and k
u
are turbulent
kinetic energies in burned and unburned gas, respec-
tively. Turbulent viscosities are given by the eddy vis-
cosity concept as
(38)
b
t
=
b
C

k
2
b
/
b
,
(39)
u
t
=
u
C

k
2
u
/
u
,
where
b
and
u
are the dissipation rates of tur-
bulent kinetic energy in burned and unburned gas and
C

is a model constant.
2.5. Modeling of mean reaction term
In case countergradient diffusion is dominant over
gradient transport with a large heat release parameter
and weak turbulence, the ame surface density
f
may be modeled simply as
(40)
f
= 4
max
c(1 c),
where
max
is the maximum value at c = 0.5. This
parabolic prole is shown to be accurate in many ex-
periments [1315], while the peak c tends to increase
with increasing gradient diffusion [13]. It does not re-
quire ambiguous modeling of source and sink terms
of a separate transport equation for
f
[1]. Fig. 7
shows the ame surface density from DNS data and
the one from Eq. (40) at the same maximum value.
The difference may primarily be due to the effect of a
nite ame thickness at the given Damkhler in DNS.
The laminar ame speed is not constant due to
stretch and curvature distribution through a ame
E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224 217
Fig. 7. Variation of the ame surface density with respect to
the Reynolds-averaged reaction progress variable: solid line,
DNS; dashed line, 4
max
c(1 c).
brush. The mean laminar ame speed can be written
as
(41) S
Lu
=I
0
S
0
Lu
,
where I
0
is the mean stretch factor and S
0
Lu
is the
unstretched laminar ame speed. The mean stretch
factor is the ratio of the local mean laminar ame
speed to S
0
Lu
. Fig. 8 shows the mean stretch fac-
tor in c-space, which is estimated by the formula
v
sb
v
su
= n
s
I
0
S
0
Lu
. The factor I
0
in-
creases monotonically as c increases to reect neg-
ative stretch on shrinking unburned gas pockets sur-
rounded by burned gas. Flamelets are subject to
positive stretch when I
0
< 1 and negative stretch
when I
0
> 1. In this study the mean stretch fac-
tor is assumed to have the following functional
form [2,16],
(42) I
0
( c) = + c
2
,
where and are adjustable constants. In the limit
of a high Damkhler number the relationship between
Favre and Reynolds-averaged reaction progress vari-
ables is
(43) c =
c
1 +(1 c)
.
The mean creation rate of burned gas may now be
given as
(44)

= 4
u
S
0
Lu

max
( + c
2
) c(1 c),
which has the same functional form as the mean reac-
tion rate in the BML model [2,16].
Fig. 8. Variation of the mean stretch factor with respect to
the Reynolds-averaged reaction progress variable.
2.6. c-transport equation and an asymptotic
expression for turbulent burning velocity
The transport equation, Eq. (17), for the Reynolds-
averaged reaction progress variable can be rewritten
as
c
t
+ v
u
c =
_
v
u
v
su
_
c
(45) + v

su
n

f
+S
Lu

f
.
The rst term in Eq. (45) is modeled with the assump-
tion that the term III in Eq. (32) is negligibly small as
_
v
u
v
su
_
c
(p
su
p
u
)| c|
2

u
S
Lu

(p
su
p
u
)
ext
| c|
2

u
S
Lu

f
+

u
t
Sc
t

2
c
(46) K
1

2
c,
where
u
t
is turbulent kinematic viscosity in unburned
gas. The difference between surface and volume av-
erage velocities comes from diffusive turbulent eddy
motions in unburned gas as well as the pressure dif-
ference due to an externally imposed pressure gra-
dient, (p
su
p
u
)
ext
. Although not clear yet, the
pressure difference, (p
su
p
u
)
ext
, will be scaled
by (p
su
p
sb
) which is equal to
u
S
2
Lu
and
may also depend on the local ame conguration or
amelet regime. Further investigation is required to
understand the relevant physics and develop a reli-
able model for this pressure difference under different
ame congurations and boundary conditions. Here
the pressure difference and turbulence effects are sim-
ply modeled as an enhanced diffusion term with a
diffusion coefcient K
1
. The second term in Eq. (45)
218 E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224
is modeled as
v

su
n

f
K
2
k
0.5
u
n

0.5
s

f
(47) =K
2
k
0.5
u
_
1 n
s
n
s
_
0.5

f
,
where the relationship n

s
= 1 n
s
n
s
is
used. K
2
is a dimensionless constant of order unity.
The quantity, v

su
n

s
, is shown to be positive and
approximately constant through a ame brush in the
DNS database [17].
The transport equation for the Reynolds-averaged
reaction progress variable can now be written for a
one-dimensional steady propagating ame as
U
T
d c
dx
=K
1
d
2
c
dx
2
+K
2
k
0.5
u
_
1 n
x

s
n
x

s
_
0.5

f
(48) +( + c
2
)S
0
Lu

f
.
The turbulent ame speed, U
T
, may be obtained
asymptotically by assuming exponential decay of c
as c approaches zero that
(49)
d c
dx
a
1
c as c 0.
The following relationships should hold asymptot-
ically at the leading edge:
d
2
c
dx
2
a
2
1
c, n
x

s
1,
(50)
f

d c
dx
a
1
c as c 0.
The magnitude of the mean unit normal vector,
n
x

s
, should approach unity as c 0 or c 1,
as burned or unburned gas may exist only on one
side of a plane normal to the propagation direction.
The constant a
1
is determined as 4
max
according
to Eqs. (40) and (50). Then, an asymptotic formula
for U
T
is given from Eq. (48) as
(51) U
T
= 4
max
K
1
+S
0
Lu
.
3. Test ames and simulation details
The zone conditional model is validated for two
test ames of turbulent premixed combustion stabi-
lized in an impinging jet: Cheng and Shepherd [7]
(ame CS) and Cho et al. [8] (ame C). The cong-
uration of reacting ow eld is illustrated in Fig. 9.
A turbulent reactant stream of the diameter, D, im-
pinges on the wall located at the distance, H, from
the nozzle. The experimental conditions and dimen-
sionless numbers for the two test ames are listed in
Table 2. They both belong to the wrinkled amelet
Fig. 9. Conguration of a stagnating turbulent premixed
ame.
Table 2
Experimental conditions and some estimated parameters
a
Case Flame CS Flame C
Fuel C
2
H
4
CH
4
w
0
[cm/s] 420 500
H [cm] 10 7.5
D [cm] 5.0 5.0
u

[cm/s] 40 30
l
t
[cm] 0.3 0.2
l
k
[cm] 0.011 0.013
1.0 1.0
7.0 6.5

l
[cm] 0.0061 0.011
S
0
Lu
[cm/s] 76 43
l
t
/
l
49 18
l
k
/
l
1.8 1.2
u

/S
0
Lu
0.53 0.70
Da 92 25
Ka 0.31 0.72
a
u

and l
t
are the values at the nozzle exit. The lami-
nar ame thickness is determined by
l
= (/c
p
)
0
/
u
S
0
Lu
where heat conductivity and heat capacity c
p
are evalu-
ated at the inner layer temperature.
regime [11] and roughly correspond to lower and up-
per limits stabilized without any signicant inuence
from the wall or the nozzle. Countergradient diffu-
sion is dominant over gradient diffusion [1] with the
ratio, u

/S
0
Lu
, less than unity. The ratio of the inte-
gral length scale to the laminar ame thickness, l
t
/
l
,
is much larger than unity for both ames. Ethylene
(C
2
H
4
) and methane (CH
4
) are used as fuel at the sto-
ichiometric equivalence ratio for the ame CS and C,
respectively.
The computational domain and imposed boundary
conditions are illustrated in Fig. 10. It is 20 cm in ra-
dial direction and the wall is located at 10 and 7.5 cm
from the nozzle for the ame CS and C, respectively.
The jet of fuel/air mixture and the coaxial jet of air
E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224 219
Fig. 10. Computational domain and imposed boundary con-
ditions.
have the radii of 2.5 and 5.0 cmin both ames. A two-
dimensional nite volume method is used with the
SIMPLE algorithm. The second-order total variation
diminishing (TVD) differencing scheme is applied to
reduce false diffusion of convection terms [18]. Uni-
form computational grids of 100200 and 100450
are used for the ame CS and C, respectively. The
number of grids is chosen to be ne enough to guar-
antee no further dependence on the grid size. There
are about 60 grid points assigned to the ame region
to eliminate grid dependence of the predicted turbu-
lent burning velocity in both cases.
The stagnation wall is a circular plate of 10-cm
radius treated as an adiabatic boundary. The ame is
outside the thermal boundary layer, which has a thick-
ness of, at most, a few millimeters on the wall [7,8].
The wall does not have any direct inuence on ame
propagation with its effect conned in the product gas
region. No slip boundary condition is applied with the
axial derivatives of all scalars set equal to zero on the
wall. The coaxial jet and entrained ambient air are re-
placed by lean fuel/air mixture near the ammability
limit [19] to dene c by Eq. (11) over all computa-
tional domains. The equivalence ratio of the lean mix-
ture is set to be 0.3 and 0.4 for ethylene and methane
fuel. A major concern in these simulations is limited
to the ame propagation characteristics on the axis of
symmetry, where the mixture stoichiometry is not af-
fected by mixing with the coaxial jet or ambient air.
An additional transport equation for the mass frac-
tion of nitrogen, Y
N
2
, is needed to consider mixing
with ambient lean fuel/air mixture on the jet bound-
ary. The equivalence ratio, , is determined from
Y
N
2

u
by assuming homogeneous mixture of C
a
H
b

air in each cell as

=(a +b/4)
(52)

3.773M
N
2
(M
O
2
+3.773M
N
2
)Y
N
2

u
M
C
a
H
b
Y
N
2

u
,
where M
i
is the molecular weight of the species i.
The transport equation for Y
N
2

u
is given as

t
_
(1 c)
u
Y
N
2

u
_
+
_
(1 c)
u
v
u
Y
N
2

u
_
=
_
(1 c)

u
t
Sc
t
Y
N
2

u
_
(53)
u
S
Lu
Y
N
2

f
,
where the gradient transport assumption is made for
the turbulent ux of Y
N
2
, i.e.,
(54)
u
_
v

u
Y

N
2
,u
_
=

u
t
Sc
t
Y
N
2

u
.
The turbulence model constants, Sc
t
and C

, are set
to 0.7 and 0.09.
Turbulence intensity and integral length scale are
kept uniform through a stagnating jet in simulation,
since the standard k turbulence model fails near the
wall [2022]. Measured conditional mean turbulence
intensities remain approximately constant through a
ame brush [7,8]. k
b
and k
u
are set to 1.97 and
0.24 m
2
/s
2
in the ame CS, while they are both
0.135 m
2
/s
2
in the ame C. The integral length scale
fromthe nozzle is maintained to the ame front, while
it increases again near the wall [23]. The integral
length scale of product gas is not of relevance here
and set equal to that of reactant. The dissipation rates,

b
and
u
, are determined from the relevant inte-
gral length scales and turbulent kinetic energies as
(55)
b
= k
3/2
b
/l
t
,
(56)
u
= k
3/2
u
/l
t
,
where l
t
is the value from the nozzle exit. The heat
release parameter is computed by the adiabatic ame
temperature, T
b
, from equilibrium calculation by
CET89 [24] at a local equivalence ratio. The un-
stretched laminar ame speed is 43 and 76 cm/s for
stoichiometric methane and ethylene [7]. It is esti-
mated by the approximate formula of Gottgens et al.
[25] for equivalence ratios less than unity.
4. Results and discussion
Fig. 11 shows contours of the Reynolds-averaged
reaction progress variable and mean streamlines in the
vicinity of the axis of symmetry. The streamlines di-
verge in the front half of a ame brush while they
converge in the rear half, as shown in experiment [7].
The c contours are mostly perpendicular to the axis
for both ames so that the radial gradient of c is close
to zero on the axis. Mixing with the coow air jet is
conned to a thin region on the jet boundary and does
not affect ame propagation on the axis. The ame
220 E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224
(a)
(b)
Fig. 11. Contours of the Reynolds-averaged reaction
progress variable and mean streamlines in vicinity of the axis
of symmetry for (a) ame CS and (b) ame C.
thickness on the axis, dened by z|
c=0.95
z|
c=0.05
,
is about 1.9 and 0.7 cm for the ame CS and C, re-
spectively. In the ame CS, the maximum ame sur-
face density,
max
, is 272 m
1
and the magnitude of
the mean unit normal vector, |n
s
|, is 0.245. These
two parameters are related with each other according
to
(57)

n
s

max
= | c|
c=0.5
to match the measured | c|
c=0.5
. and in the
mean stretch factor, Eq. (42), are tuned to 0.450 and
1.315 to match the ame location and c prole. In the
ame C,
max
is 372 m
1
and |n
s
| is 0.538. and
are tuned to 0.545 and 0.769, respectively. These
ame surface densities are of a comparable magnitude
with measurements in the wrinkled amelet regime,
which are around 300 m
1
[13].
The ratio of the minimum and maximum I
0
for
the ame CS is 3.94, which is much smaller than
the value about 32 in the BCL analysis neglecting
countergradient diffusion [16]. Karmed et al. [2] pre-
sented a two-dimensional second-order closure sim-
ulation based on the BCL analysis for the ame CS.
Their results showed good agreement with measured
c and axial velocity proles despite signicantly un-
derpredicted turbulent ux of c. The underpredicted
turbulent ux in Karmed et al. was actually com-
pensated by the excessive increase in the Damkhler
number, which is proportional to I
0
. The ratio of the
minimum and maximum I
0
for the ame C is calcu-
lated as 2.41, which is less than that for the ame CS.
This agrees with the BCL analysis that the Damkh-
ler number increases for a ame stabilized away from
the wall [16]. The mean pressure gradient in a stagnat-
ing ame is composed of three contributions; thermal
expansion, turbulent motion, and externally imposed
pressure gradient due to a stagnating wall. A positive
external pressure gradient is established in the ow
direction in an impinging jet; i.e., pressure increases
from the nozzle to the wall. The conditional pressure
gradient in unburned gas should decrease as the ame
approaches the wall, since zero axial pressure gradi-
ent is imposed on the wall. A positive pressure gra-
dient tends to increase ame brush thickness, turbu-
lent burning velocity, and ame wrinkling [26], while
the opposite occurs with a negative pressure gradient.
Flame wrinkling will increase positive stretch at the
leading edge and negative stretch at the trailing edge,
resulting in lower and higher in the mean stretch
factor.
Fig. 12 shows the Reynolds-averaged reaction
progress variable and the unconditional and condi-
tional axial velocities along the axis. Note that the
predicted mean reaction progress variables are in
good agreement by adjusting the tuning constants in
the c transport equation. The tuning constants in this
study are , , K
1
,
max
, and |n
s
|, in which the
latter two are not independent to reproduce the mea-
sured | c|
c=0.5
in Eq. (57). The former two constants
primarily determine the shape of a c prole, while the
ame surface density,
max
, affects the location and
thickness of a ame brush. The enhanced diffusivity,
K
1
, is tuned to reproduce the measured ame loca-
tion and turbulent burning velocity for each ame.
The conditional continuity and momentum equations
are solved, once these tuning constants are adjusted to
reproduce the measured c prole. The constant, K
1
,
also does the role of coupling the conditional pres-
sures, p
u
and p
b
, by determining the pressure
difference, p
su
p
u
, at the leading edge. The un-
E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224 221
(a)
(b)
Fig. 12. Distributions of the Reynolds-averaged reaction
progress variable and the unconditional and conditional ax-
ial velocities on the axis of symmetry for (a) ame CS and
(b) ame C: symbols, measurements; lines, predictions.
conditional axial velocity, w, is given as
(58) w =(1 c)w
u
+ cw
b
.
Note that the unburned gas velocity is greater than the
burned gas velocity with gradient diffusion dominant
at both edges. Countergradient diffusion is dominant
with the unburned gas velocity less than the burned
gas velocity over the rest of the ame region. Predic-
tions show good agreement with the measured con-
ditional velocities, although data are not available to
conrm gradient diffusion near the edges in experi-
ment.
A parametric study is performed on the constant,
K
2
, which turns out to have a signicant effect over
most ame regions except at the edges. If it is as-
signed a value of 0.5 instead of unity, a new set of
(a)
(b)
Fig. 13. Budget for the conditional momentum equa-
tion of unburned gas on the axis of symmetry for (a)
ame CS and (b) ame C: I = [(1 c)
u
v
u
v
u
],
II = (1 c)p
u
, III = [(1 c)
u
v

u
v

u
],
IV =
u
I
0
S
0
Lu
v
u

f
.
the optimum constants may be obtained without any
change in the computational results. The new con-
stants for the ame CS are = 0.230, = 0.673,

max
= 532 m
1
, |n
s
| = 0.125, and the same K
1
.
The ratio of the maximum and the minimum I
0
also
remains the same. The mean stretch factor and the
magnitude of the mean unit normal vector have de-
creased, while the ame surface density has increased
to compensate for the change in K
2
. The same story
applies with a new set of optimum constants, but no
change in the results for the ame C. It is clear that
arbitrary choice of the constant, K
2
, does not affect
any discussions on qualitative or quantitative trends
in this paper, although we need more data to x these
constants.
222 E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224
(a)
(b)
Fig. 14. Budget for the conditional momentum equation
of burned gas on the axis of symmetry for (a) ame CS
and (b) ame C: I = ( c
b
v
b
v
b
), II = cp
b
,
III = ( c
b
v

b
v

b
), IV =
b
I
0
S
0
Lb
v
b

f
.
Figs. 13 and 14 show budgets of the conditional
momentum equations in unburned and burned gas.
Each term in the conditional momentum equations
shows a similar prole in both ames. The diffusion
term plays a minor role as compared with the con-
vection, pressure and reaction source terms in both
burned and unburned momentum budgets. Increasing
ow divergence suppresses the pressure gradient term
in the rear half of the ame C in Fig. 13b. The pres-
sure gradient term is not negligible for the ame CS,
which is located farther away from the wall and un-
dergoing less ow divergence than the ame C. Major
momentum transfer over most ame region occurs by
convection and reaction in burned and unburned gas
in Figs. 13 and 14. The reaction and convection terms
are dominant at the leading edge in the burned gas
(a)
(b)
Fig. 15. Budget for the transport equation of Reynolds-
averaged reaction progress variable on the axis of sym-
metry for (a) ame CS and (b) ame C: I = v
u
c,
II =(v
u
v
su
) c, III = v

su
n

f
, IV =S
Lu

f
.
budget, while the same terms are dominant at the trail-
ing edge in the unburned gas budget. On the other
hand, the pressure and convection terms are dominant
with negligible reaction at the trailing edge for the
burned gas momentum budget, and also at the lead-
ing edge for the unburned gas momentum budget.
Fig. 15 shows a budget for transport of the
Reynolds-averaged reaction progress variable. The
diffusion term of a nonnegligible magnitude reects
the effect of an externally imposed pressure gradient
as well as gradient diffusion due to turbulent eddies
at the leading edge in Eq. (46). As previously dis-
cussed, the constant K
1
is tuned to 2.70 10
3
and
4.46 10
4
m
2
/s for the ame CS and C, respec-
tively, to produce the turbulent burning velocities in
agreement with experimental data. The constant, K
2
,
E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224 223
is arbitrarily set equal to unity for both ames. As pre-
viously discussed, this uctuation term of unburned
surface velocity and unit normal vector may require
further investigation. The ratio, K
1
/
u
t
, which rep-
resents relative importance of an external pressure
gradient and turbulent diffusion on the turbulent burn-
ing velocity, is 20 for the ame CS and 6.7 for the
ame C. It is obvious that the ame CS subject to a
larger positive pressure gradient has a larger value of
K
1
/
u
t
.
The measured turbulent ame speeds, U
T
, are
2.77 and 1.04 m/s while the predicted ones by
Eq. (51), U
T,pred
, are 3.28 and 0.90 m/s for the ame
CS and C, respectively. The local minimum of the ve-
locity prole of unburned gas on the axis is chosen
as the turbulent ame speed in experiment [8]. Rel-
ative errors, (U
T
U
T,pred
)/U
T,pred
, are 15.5 and
15.6% for the ame CS and C. No tuning is required
for the constant K
1
of the DNS ame, since it re-
duces to
u
t
/Sc
t
with no external pressure gradient
in Eq. (46). The relative error for the DNS ame is
17.2% with U
T
= 1.20 m/s and U
T,pred
= 1.45 m/s.
The asymptotic formula may be considered as an ac-
curate representation for a given transport c equation,
if we take into account the uncertainties in the mea-
sured turbulent burning velocity in a two-dimensional
stagnating ame and the nite Damkhler effects in
the DNS data.
5. Conclusions
1. The conditionally averaged mass and momen-
tum equations are derived with an additional transport
equation for c and some simplifying relationships for
ame surface-average pressures and velocities. As-
ymptotic analysis shows that ame propagation char-
acteristics are determined by gradient diffusion and
an externally imposed pressure gradient at the lead-
ing edge. The latter tends to increase the turbulent
burning velocity for ames stabilized in conned or
stagnating ows with a positive pressure gradient im-
posed in the ow direction.
2. The turbulent burning velocity is represented by
a simple formula in terms of laminar ame speed,
turbulent diffusivity in unburned gas, and maximum
ame surface density. It agrees well with the DNS
data with no external pressure gradient and the com-
putational results with given c transport equation and
diffusion coefcient, K
1
. The asymptotic formula in-
cludes an additional term for the difference between
surface and volume-average pressures for ames with
an external pressure gradient. More work is required
for modeling the effect of an external pressure gradi-
ent on the turbulent burning velocity.
3. In this paper turbulent diffusivity in unburned
gas is arbitrarily adjusted to account for the effects
of both turbulence and an external pressure gradi-
ent to match the measured ame location and turbu-
lent burning velocity. The predicted conditional axial
velocities show good agreement with measurements,
once the c prole is matched by adjusting the tuning
constants in the c transport equation. The unburned
gas velocity is greater than the burned gas veloc-
ity with gradient diffusion dominant at both edges,
while the opposite holds with countergradient diffu-
sion dominant over most ame region.
4. The effect of an external pressure gradient is
larger for the ame CS than for the ame C, which
is located closer to the wall. The axial pressure gra-
dient in an impinging jet tends to decrease toward the
stagnating wall with a zero pressure gradient imposed
on the wall. A positive pressure gradient in the ow
direction tends to enhance ame wrinkling and tur-
bulent burning velocity to result in more signicant
ame stretch effects. The ratio of the minimum and
maximum I
0
is greater for the ame CS than for the
ame C, due to a larger external pressure gradient.
5. The zone conditioned two-uid model provides
a more intuitive and realistic set of governing equa-
tions than Favre averaging. Countergradient diffu-
sion may be interpreted as an artifact resulting from
Favre averaging ignoring large disparities between
conditional properties of burned and unburned zones.
Although zone conditioning does not involve coun-
tergradient diffusion in terms of mixture properties,
more investigation is required for ad hoc modeling
and validation of various interfacial transfer terms of
mass, momentum, and other scalar quantities between
two zones.
Acknowledgments
Financial support by the BK21 Project of Ministry
of Education, Korea, and the Combustion Engineer-
ing Research Center in Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology is acknowledged. The DNS
data in this paper are provided by Prof. T. Hasegawa
and Dr. S. Nishiki at Nagoya University, Japan.
References
[1] D. Veynante, A. Trouv, K.N.C. Bray, T. Mantel, J.
Fluid Mech. 332 (1997) 263293.
[2] D. Karmed, M. Champion, P. Bruel, Combust.
Flame 119 (1999) 335345.
[3] A. Lipatnikov, J. Chomiak, Proc. Combust. Inst. 28
(2000) 227234.
[4] J.-Y. Chen, J.L. Lumley, F.C. Gouldin, Proc. Combust.
Inst. 21 (1986) 14831491.
224 E. Lee, K.Y. Huh / Combustion and Flame 138 (2004) 211224
[5] H.G. Weller, The Development of a New Flame
Area Combustion Model Using Conditional Averaging,
Thermo-Fluids Section Report TF/9307, Department of
Mech. Eng., Imperial College of Science Technology
and Medicine, 1993.
[6] A.Y. Klimenko, R.W. Bilger, Prog. Energy Combust.
Sci. 25 (1999) 595687.
[7] R.K. Cheng, I.G. Shepherd, Combust. Flame 85 (1991)
726.
[8] P. Cho, C.K. Law, R.K. Cheng, I.G. Shepherd, Proc.
Combust. Inst. 22 (1988) 739745.
[9] P.A. Libby, F.A. Williams, in: P.A. Libby, F.A.
Williams (Eds.), Turbulent Reacting Flows, Academic
Press, San Diego, 1994, pp. 4152.
[10] S. Nishiki, T. Hasegawa, R. Borghi, R. Himeno, Proc.
Combust. Inst. 29 (2002) 20172022.
[11] N. Peters, Turbulent Combustion, Cambridge Univ.
Press, Cambridge, 2000, p. 79.
[12] K.N.C. Bray, M. Champion, P.A. Libby, Combust.
Flame 120 (2000) 118.
[13] G.G. Lee, K.Y. Huh, H. Kobayashi, Combust.
Flame 122 (2000) 4357.
[14] C. Mounaim-Rousselle, I. Gokalp, Proc. Combust.
Inst. 25 (1994) 11991205.
[15] I.G. Shepherd, Proc. Combust. Inst. 26 (1996) 373
379.
[16] K.N.C. Bray, M. Champion, P.A. Libby, Combust.
Flame 112 (1998) 635654.
[17] Y.-H. Im, Development of the Two-Fluid Turbulence
Model for Premixed Turbulent Flames, Ph.D. the-
sis, Pohang University of Science and Technology
(2003).
[18] W.P. Jones, in: P.A. Libby, F.A. Williams (Eds.), Tur-
bulent Reacting Flows, Academic Press, San Diego,
1994, p. 346.
[19] I. Glassman, Combustion, Academic Press, San Diego,
1996, p. 162.
[20] B.E. Launder, Appl. Sci. Res. 48 (1991) 247269.
[21] K. Knowles, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 22 (1996)
799810.
[22] S. Ashforth-Frost, K. Jambunathan, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Fluids 23 (1996) 295306.
[23] M. Champion, P.A. Libby, AIAA J. 29 (1991) 1624.
[24] S. Gordon, B.J. McBride, Computer Program for the
Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Com-
positions, Rocket Performance, Incident and Reected
Shocks, and ChapmanJouguet Detonations, NASA
Publication SP-273, 1971.
[25] J. Gottgens, F. Mauss, N. Peters, Proc. Combust.
Inst. 24 (1992) 129135.
[26] D. Veynante, T. Poinsot, J. Fluid Mech. 353 (1997)
83114.