Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Proceedings
ScienceDirect of the
Combustion
Institute
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35 (2015) 23152322
www.elsevier.com/locate/proci

Flamelet model for pulverized coal combustion

Junya Watanabe , Kenji Yamamoto
Research & Development Center, Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd., Japan

Available online 10 August 2014

Abstract

A new amelet model applicable to the simulation of pulverized coal combustion has been developed.
First, a modeling approach that considers the coupling with both devolatilization and char combustion was
adopted. We changed the fuel composition of the amelet equation relative to the states of devolatilization
and char combustion. In order to determine the fuel composition coming through the char combustion, all
the gasied char was assumed to be converted into CO by the oxidation reaction. The validity of the
developed amelet model was examined in a simple two-dimensional pulverized coal jet eld ignited by
burnt co-ows. The accuracy of the model was evaluated by comparing its instantaneous distributions
of temperature, CO2 mass fraction, and OH mass fraction with those of a detailed chemistry model. Good
agreement was obtained in terms of the overall features of turbulent structures and combustion state,
although the amelet model showed slightly quicker ignition due to the transitional state in the ignition
process being insuciently reproducible.
2014 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pulverized coal combustion; Flamelet; Detailed chemistry; Turbulent jet ame; Ignition

1. Introduction of pulverized coal combustion has been applied to

Pulverized coal combustion technologies must
be advanced to achieve stable ignition, attain
highly-ecient combustion, and reduce NOx and
CO2 emissions in coal-red thermal power plants.
The ow and combustion state inside a coal-red
boiler must be understood in detail to improve
performance and develop new combustion tech-
nologies. Numerical analysis is a powerful tool
for this purpose. Therefore, many simulations of
pulverized coal combustion have been extensively
conducted. Recently, large-eddy simulation (LES)
Corresponding author. Address: 832-2 Horiguchi,
Hitachinaka-shi, Ibaraki-ken 312-0034, Japan.
E-mail address: junya_watanabe@mhps.com
(J. Watanabe).
laboratory-scale burners [15]. In our group, LES
is also applied to a large-scale boiler furnace with
a coal feed rate of 3000 kg/h [6].
The selection of a turbulent combustion model
strongly aects the accuracy of predicting the
combustion state. In previous simulations of pul-
verized coal combustion (including the aforemen-
tioned work), the eddy-breakup model and eddy
dissipation model [7] have often been used because
of their extensive range of application. However,
the concept of these models is intuitive as both
unreasonably replace the chemical time scale with
a turbulent time scale [8]. These models also do not
consider the ame structure that interacts with
turbulence. Thus, these models cannot correctly
reect the inuence of chemical kinetics and turbu-
lence-chemistry interactions. In order to reproduce

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2014.07.065
1540-7489/ 2014 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2316 J. Watanabe, K. Yamamoto / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35 (2015) 23152322
such non-equilibrium behavior as ignition and
extinction, more sophisticated models that con-
sider the nite rate chemistry with detailed reac-
tion mechanism are preferred. However, the high
computational cost of such models for practical
use is not aordable.
The amelet model is one of the most promis-
ing because it can take detailed chemical kinetics
into account at a reasonable computational cost.
Various amelet models have been developed
and applied to simulations of gaseous combustion
[913] and spray combustion [1416]. However, as
far as we know, no amelet model has been cou-
pled with a coal combustion model that takes
both devolatilization and char surface reaction
into account, although a amelet model applied
to gasied coal volatile combustion has been
reported [17,18]. The purpose of this study is to
develop a amelet model applicable to the simula-
tion of pulverized coal combustion. The accuracy
of the model is investigated by comparing it with a
nite rate chemistry model with a detailed reac-
tion mechanism.
2. Numerical methods
In this study, the simulations of pulverized coal
combustion using the amelet model (amelet
simulation) and using the nite rate chemistry
model with a detailed reaction mechanism
(detailed chemistry simulation) are compared. In
both simulations, the gas phase and coal particles
are solved in an Eulerian manner and a Lagrang-
ian manner, respectively. The main focus of this
study is how well amelet simulation reproduces
detailed chemistry simulation with the same calcu-
lation models. To save on the computational cost
of detailed chemistry simulation, we use some sim-
plied models, such as a relatively simple reaction
mechanism that considers hydrocarbons of low
molecular weight. Moreover, the radiation and
the soot formation are neglected.
The following sections rst describe details of
the amelet simulation, and then briey mention
the numerical models used for the detailed chem-
istry simulation.
2.1. Governing equations and numerical models for
amelet simulation
The non-ltered and non-averaged conserva-
tion equations for mass, momentum, enthalpy,
and the state equation for ideal gas are solved in
the gas phase as follows:
@q @qui
S C;m ; 1 2.2. Flamelet modeling for coal combustion
@t @xi
@qui @qui uj @p @ In this study, we propose a amelet model cou-
 sij S C;mom;i ; 2 pled with a coal combustion model. In the am-
@t @xj @xi @xj
 
@qh @qui h Dp @ @h
qa S C;h ; 3
@t @xi Dt @xi @xi
qRT
p ; 4
M
where q is the gas density, ui is the gas velocity, p
is the pressure, sij is the viscous stress tensor, h is
the enthalpy, a is the thermal diusivity, R is the
universal gas constant, T is the gas temperature,
and M is the mean molecular weight of gas. Note
that SC,m, SC,mom,i and SC,h are the source terms
due to coal combustion, as calculated by the par-
ticle-source-in cell model [19].
The numerical methods for dispersed phase are
described next. One coal particle is assumed to be
composed of volatile matter, char, and ash. The
changes in mass, momentum, and temperature
of a particle are calculated as follows:
dmp dmchar dmvol
; 5
dt dt dt
dmp U i 3C D q
ui  U i U rel mp gi mp ; 6
dt 4d p qp
dmp C p T p Nuk
S ext T  T p Qc ; 7
dt dp
where mp is the total mass of a particle, mchar is the
mass of char, mvol is the mass of volatile matter, Ui
is the particle velocity, dp is the particle diameter,
qp is the particle density, Urel is the relative veloc-
ity between gas and the particle, CD is the drag
coecient, Cp is the specic heat, Tp is the particle
temperature, k is the thermal conductivity of gas,
Sext is the surface area of the particle, and Qc is
the energy transfer due to char combustion and
devolatilization. The Nusselt number Nu is calcu-
lated by using the RanzMarshall model [20]. This
model does not take Stefan ow into account dur-
ing pyrolysis. We have estimated the inuence by
using a stagnant-lm model [21]. In the case sim-
ulated in this study, the dierence in the heat
transfer coecient is less than 7%.
The devolatilization and char combustion
models used are the same as those used in our pre-
vious work [3,6]. A modied single reaction rate
model called FoDeF model was used for the devol-
atilization model; a kinetic/diusion surface model
that considers char oxidation and gasication
reactions was used for the char combustion model.
Our previous work describes these models in detail
and demonstrates their validity. A new amelet
model (described in the next section) is used for
the turbulent combustion model in the gas phase.
 J. Watanabe, K. Yamamoto / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35 (2015) 23152322 2317

elet approach, the conservation equation of the tively simple reaction mechanism that considers
mixture fraction is solved in physical space, and hydrocarbons of low molecular weight. The frac-
the mixture fraction is used as a parameter to tions of these species (represented by Yvol,k) are
obtain the gas composition from a amelet data- set to meet the mass balance of the ultimate anal-
base. The amelet database is generated before- ysis. How to determine the fuel gas composition
hand by solving the amelet equations. coming through char combustion (represented by
For coal combustion, devolatilization and char Ychar,k) is a key issue for an appropriate modeling
combustion are supposed to progress separately in of coal combustion. Some parts of the gas species
dierent processes. Thus, the production rate and are consumed along with some products being
composition of fuel gas emanating from the vola- produced through char surface reactions, thus
tile matter dier from those of fuel gas emanating causing a complicated change in gas composition.
through char combustion. In the present model- This change in gas composition coupled with char
ing, we separately solve the conservation equa- combustion must be correctly modeled. In the
tions of mixture fractions of these fuel gases as present modeling, it is assumed that all solid
  carbon corresponding to m0char is converted into
@qZ vol @qui Z vol @ @Z vol
qa CO by the char oxidation reaction that consumes
@t @xi @xi @xi oxygen in the oxidant as follows:
1 X dmvol C 0:5O2 aN2 ! CO 0:5aN2 : 13
 ; 8
V cell particle dt
For the air oxidant, a = 3.76 is used. Based on this
  assumption, Ychar,k is obtained as follows:
@qZ char @qui Z char @ @Z char 8
qa M CO
for k CO
@t @xi @xi @xi >
>
< M CO 0:5aM N2
1 X dmchar Y char;k 0:5aM N2
14
 ; 9 > M CO 0:5aM N2
for k N2 ;
V cell particle dt >
:
0 for k others
where Vcell denotes the volume of a mesh cell. The where MCO and M N2 denote the molecular weights
particle-in-cell model is used to calculate the last of CO and N2, respectively. Note that the oxidant
terms in Eqs. (8) and (9). The unity Lewis number is consumed for the conversion of char into CO.
is assumed. Here, Zvol and Zchar are dened as The mass of the consumed oxidant is calculated as
m0vol M O2 aM N2 0
Z vol ; 10 m0ox;conv 0:5 mchar ; 15
m0vol m0char m0ox MC

m0char where M O2 and MC denote the molecular weights

Z char ; 11 of O2 and C, respectively. The fuel composition
m0vol m0char m0ox Yfuel,k is thus determined as
where m0vol is the mass of gas originating from the m0vol Y vol;k m0char m0ox;conv Y char;k
volatile matter, m0char is the mass of gas originating Y fuel;k
from the char and m0ox is the mass of gas originat- m0vol m0char m0ox;conv
 
ing from the oxidant. M aM
Y vol;k A 0:5 O2 M C N2 A Y char;k
When two mixture fractions are considered, :
M O2 aM N2
two-dimensional amelet equations [2224] are, 1 A 0:5 A
MC
in a precise sense, solved to obtain the amelet
database. However, dealing with two-dimensional 16
amelet equations is complicated. In the present The upper bound of Z where the fuel composition
modeling, we introduce two new variables of Z is imposed is calculated as
and A as follows:
m0vol m0char
Z Z vol Z char ; A Z char =Z vol m0char =m0vol : Z max
m0vol m0char m0ox;conv
12
1A
M O2 aM N2 : 17
Ordinary one-dimensional amelet equations with 1 A 0:5 A
MC
a single scalar dissipation rate v are solved in Z
space at dierent values of A. Depending on the Table 1 lists the coal properties used in this study.
value of A, the fuel composition of the amelet The assumed composition of gasied volatile mat-
equation changes relative to the states of devola- ter Yvol,k is also listed. In this study, dry coal is sim-
tilization and char combustion. ulated for a simple case. Fig 1 shows the fuel
The fuel gas coming from the volatile matter is compositions Yfuel,k at some values of A, which
assumed to be composed of CO, CH4, and C2H2 in are imposed as boundary conditions on the fuel
this study. We use this assumption to apply a rela- side of the amelet equations. In this study, the
2318 J. Watanabe, K. Yamamoto / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35 (2015) 23152322

Table 1 0.3 (a)

Coal properties. scalar dissipation rate = 4.5 s-1
0.25 A
Proximate analysis (dry basis wt%) 0.000

CO2 mass fraction

Volatile matter 38.9 0.061
0.2
0.123
Char 47.8 0.246
Ash 13.3 0.15 0.369
0.614
Fuel composition originating from the volatile matter, 0.1 1.230
Yvol,k  100 (wt%)
CO 34.8 0.05
CH4 41.3
C2H2 23.9 0
2500 (b) 2300
2100
2000
1900
0.7 1700
1500

T, K
Mass fraction of fuel, Yfuel,k

0.6 N2
0.1 0.2
0.5 1000

0.4
CO 500
0.3
0
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CH4 Z
0.1
C2H2
0 Fig. 2. Flamelet data of (a) CO2 mass fraction and (b)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 gas temperature at v = 4.5 s1 for each A value. The
A inset shows a zoom of temperature proles around the
peak.
Fig. 1. Fuel compositions for amelet equations at each
A value.
The proposed amelet model is based on the
amelet/progress variable (FPV) approach [10].
steady one-dimensional amelet equations are The progress variable Cpv is introduced and used
solved at p = 0.1 MPa without considering as a parameter referring to the amelet database.
radiation by using the FlameMaster code [25]. The following conservation equation of Cpv is
GRI-Mech 2.11 [26] is used as the reaction mecha- solved in physical space.
nism. Fig. 2 shows an example of amelet data  
(CO2 mass fraction and gas temperature distribu- @qC pv @qui C pv @ @C pv
qa S Cpv 19
tions) obtained at v = 4.5 s1 for various A values. @t @xi @xi @xi
Note that Zmax becomes less than unity for A > 0
as calculated in Eq. (17). For example, in the case where SCpv is the source term of Cpv. In this study,
of A = 1.23, the oxidant corresponding to we used the CO2 mass fraction as the progress
Z = 0.24 is needed to convert the gasied char into variable (C pv Y CO2 ). The CO mass fraction is
CO. Also, the temperature assigned for fuel gas in not included in Cpv because CO is produced in dif-
the amelet equations becomes higher as the value ferent processes from combustion in the gas
of A increases (see Fig. 2b). This is because the phase, such as devolatilization and char surface
temperature increase due to the heat of reaction reactions. The enthalpy h solved in Eq. (3) is also
associated with the char oxidation reaction is taken used as a parameter referring to the amelet data-
into account. The temperature increase can be esti- base. Consequently, the gas phase composition is
mated as follows: determined from the amelet data using the
parameters of Z, A, Cpv, and h.
Qox m0char
DT 2.3. Detailed chemistry simulation
C p;fuel m0vol m0char m0ox;conv
Qox A In addition to Eqs. (1)(4), the conservation
; 18
C p;fuel 1 A 0:5 M O2 aM N2 A equations of gas species are also solved in the
MC
gas phase for the detailed chemistry simulation
where Qox is the heat of reaction for the char oxi- as follows:
dation reaction shown in Eq. (13), and Cp,fuel is  
@qY k @qui Y k @ @Y k
the specic heat of the fuel gas. As the value of qa xk S C;m;k
A increases, the peak CO2 mass fraction and gas @t @xi @xi @xi
temperature become higher. 20
 J. Watanabe, K. Yamamoto / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35 (2015) 23152322 2319

Here, Yk is the mass fraction of species k, and xk 3. Numerical conditions

is the reaction rate of species k, which is calculated
by the nite rate chemistry model with GRI-Mech
2.11 [26]. Also, SC,m,k is the source term due to
coal combustion. The unity Lewis number
assumption is used for all species. The particle
model and coal combustion model are the same
as those used for the amelet simulation.
Co-flow conditions
U = 3 m/s
T = 1862 K
YN2 = 0.711, YO2 = 0.084
YCO2 = 0.158, YH2O = 0.043
3.1. Flow conguration and mesh
Figure 3 illustrates the computational mesh
and ow conditions simulated in this study. To
reduce the computational cost, the simulations
are conducted two-dimensionally. The domain is
200 mm long and 100 mm high. The mesh has
39,000 cells. There is a coal/air mixture jet inlet
with a 1-mm-wide slit at the center of the left
Slip wall B.C.
boundary. The mean velocity of the jet is 20 m/
s, with periodic velocity uctuation at an ampli-
tude of 4 m/s and a Strouhal number of 0.4 being

100 mm
y
imposed to enhance the turbulent transition. The
x
O stoichiometric ratio of the coal/air mixture is
SR = 0.21. In this study, only small coal particles
less than 5 lm in diameter are considered, as igni-
tion can be achieved in a short distance. High tem-
Jet (coal + air) conditions
200 mm
Outflow B.C.
perature co-ows with a burnt gas composition
SR = 0.21 Slip wall B.C. Non-reflective exist next to the jet in order to ignite the coal par-
U = 20 m/s (with periodic fluct.) B.C. for p
T = 350 K ticles. Figure 3 also shows the other boundary
conditions. At the outlet boundary, the non-
Fig. 3. Numerical mesh and conditions. reective boundary condition is imposed for pres-

Detailed chemistry Flamelet

A B

Fluctuation range of Fluctuation range of

ignition position ignition position
0.05 0.22
(a) CO2 mass fraction

Detailed chemistry Flamelet

350 2200 K
(b) Particle temperature

Detailed chemistry Flamelet

C D

0 0.0035
(c) OH mass fraction

Fig. 4. Comparisons of instantaneous distributions of (a) CO2 mass fraction, (b) particle temperature, and (c) OH mass
fraction.
2320 J. Watanabe, K. Yamamoto / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35 (2015) 23152322

sure, with free outow conditions being imposed
for the other variables.
3.2. Numerical schemes
The same schemes are used for both amelet
and detailed chemistry simulations. For the con-
vection terms, a fourth-order central dierence
scheme is used. A limiter function is applied for
the scalar equations. For the diusion terms, a
second-order central dierence scheme is used.
Time integration is performed by using the
fourth-order RungeKutta method for the con-
vection terms, and by the second-order Crank-
Nicolson method for the diusion terms. The time
step is determined so that the maximum Courant
number is less than 0.1 for the amelet simulation
and less than 0.02 for the detailed chemistry sim-
ulation, in order to guarantee time accuracy.
4. Results and discussion
The result of detailed chemistry simulation is
used as a reference to evaluate the accuracy of
the developed amelet model for coal combustion.
4.1. Comparison of instantaneous distributions
Figure 4 compares the instantaneous distribu-
tions of CO2 mass fraction, particle temperature,
and OH mass fraction between the amelet simu-
lation and detailed chemistry simulation. The
amelet simulation can reproduce a turbulent eld
and combustion state qualitatively similar to those
of the detailed chemistry simulation. As shown in
Fig. 4a, ignition occurs in the mixing layer between
the coal jet and co-ow, where CO2 is generated
(regions A and B). The development of the jet
width is almost the same between both simula-

A
Detailed chemistry Flamelet

(a) Gas temperature

Detailed chemistry B Flamelet

(b) CO2 mass fraction

Detailed chemistry Flamelet

(c) OH mass fraction

Fig. 5. Comparisons of scatter plots of (a) gas temperature, (b) CO2 mass fraction, and (c) OH mass fraction.
 J. Watanabe, K. Yamamoto / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35 (2015) 23152322
tions. The turbulent structure can be clearly
observed from the particle distributions (Fig. 4b).
In both simulations, a characteristic coherent
structure consisting of large-scale eddies is formed
due to KelvinHelmholtz instability in the shear
layer, and the eddies develop downstream. The
pulverized coal particles are transported by these
eddies and heated at the contact surfaces with
the high-temperature co-ows. The combustion
reactions progress along these eddies where OH
production is obvious (see Fig. 4c). OH produc-
tion inside the jet core is somewhat overestimated
in the amelet simulation (regions C and D).
Ignition position is compared next. The igni-
tion position is dened as the upstream edge where
the CO2 mass fraction becomes larger than 0.18
(15% greater than the value of co-ow). The igni-
tion position changes at each time, causing the
ignition position to uctuate unsteadily. The range
of ignition position is shown in Fig. 4a. The igni-
tion distance from the inlet is from 9.7 mm to
11.3 mm for the detailed chemistry simulation
and from 5.9 mm to 7.4 mm for the amelet simu-
lation. The amelet simulation underestimates the
ignition distance by roughly 35% upstream of the
detailed chemistry simulation.
4.2. Comparison of scatter plots
Figure 5 compares the scatter plots of instanta-
neous gas temperature, CO2 mass fraction, and
OH mass fraction against Z. The instantaneous
data is obtained from the entire domain. Overall,
the amelet simulation reproduces the data
distribution observed in the detailed chemistry
simulation. As shown in Fig. 5a, the maximum
temperature appears at around Z = 0.08 for both
simulations and is 2200 K for the detailed chemis-
try simulation and 2116 K for the amelet simula-
tion. That is, there is error of about 4% for
maximum temperature. Even larger error (about
20%) exists for the maximum OH mass fraction
(see Fig. 5c). In contrast to the amelet simulation,
many super-equilibrium OH concentrations [8]
exist for the detailed chemistry simulation. Also,
there are no data points in some intermediate
regions (shown as regions A, B, and C in Fig. 5)
for the amelet simulation. These data points
correspond to transitional states in the ignition
process. Therefore, the present amelet model
does not suciently resolve the ignition process.
One possible reason for this drawback is the
inappropriate choice of the progress variable.
The present model uses CO2 mass fraction as the
progress variable. However, CO2 is just a nal
product and does not play an important role in
the initial process of combustion. The eect of
the choice of Cpv will be investigated in the future.
Another possible reason is that the present
amelet database is generated based on the steady
amelet equations. Ihme and See [27] reported
2321
that the ame state predicted by the FPV model
based on steady amelet equations was primarily
conned to the upper stable branch of the S-
shaped curve, which explained the short ignition
distance. The FPV approach based on unsteady
amelet equations may be required in order to
predict the ignition process more accurately.
5. Conclusions
This paper proposed a amelet model for sim-
ulating pulverized coal combustion. The devel-
oped model was based on the amelet/progress
variable approach, and coupled with both devola-
tilization and char combustion. The prediction
accuracy of our model was investigated by com-
paring it with a detailed chemistry model in a sim-
plied pulverized coal jet conguration.
The simulation using the present amelet
model well reproduced a characteristic combus-
tion state appeared in simulation results obtained
by using the detailed chemistry model. The maxi-
mum temperature in the ame can be captured
with error of roughly 4%. The proposed amelet
model estimated ignition faster than the detailed
chemistry model, but underestimated the ignition
distance dened from the CO2 mass fraction
increase by about 35%. The present amelet
model tends to have diculty reproducing the
transitional state in the ignition process. To
improve ignition prediction capability, a more
appropriate choice of progress variable or the for-
mation of a database using unsteady amelet
equations may be required.
References
[1] R. Kurose, H. Makino, Combust. Flame 135 (2003)
116.
[2] R. Kurose, H. Watanabe, H. Makino, KONA
Power Particle J. 27 (2009) 144156.
[3] K. Yamamoto, T. Murota, T. Okazaki, M. Tanig-
uchi, Proc. Combust. Inst. 33 (2011) 17711778.
[4] N. Hashimoto, R. Kurose, S.-M. Hwang, H. Tsuji,
H. Shirai, Combust. Flame 159 (2012) 353366.
[5] O.T. Stein, G. Olenik, A. Kronenburg, et al., Flow
Turbul. Combust. 90 (2013) 859884.
[6] K. Yamamoto, D. Kina, T. Okazaki, M. Taniguchi,
H. Okazaki, K. Ochi, Proc. ASME 2011 Power,
POWER2011-55367, 2011.
[7] B.F. Magnussen, B.H. Hjertager, Proc. Combust.
Inst. 16 (1977) 719729.
[8] N. Peters, Turbulent Combustion, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, UK, 2000.
[9] N. Peters, Proc. Combust. Inst. 21 (1986) 1231
1250.
[10] C.D. Pierce, P. Moin, J. Fluid Mech. 504 (2004) 73
97.
[11] H. Pitsch, M. Ihme, An unsteady/amelet progress
variable method for LES of nonpremixed turbulent
combustion, AIAA Paper 2005557, 2005.
2322 J. Watanabe, K. Yamamoto / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35 (2015) 23152322
[12] M. Ihme, C.M. Cha, H. Pitsch, Proc. Combust.
Inst. 30 (2005) 793800.
[13] K. Yunoki, T. Murota, K. Miura, T. Okazaki,
Proc. ASME 2013 Power, POWER2013-98143,
2013.
[14] Y. Baba, R. Kurose, J. Fluid Mech. 612 (2008) 45
79.
[15] H.-W. Ge, E. Gutheil, Combust. Flame 153 (2008)
173185.
[16] Y. Itoh, N. Oshima, J. Therm. Sci. Technol. 4 (1)
(2009) 122130.
[17] A. Williams, M. Pourkashanian, J.M. Jones, Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci. 27 (2001) 587610.
[18] M. Vascellari, H. Xu, C. Hasse, Proc. Combust.
Inst. 34 (2013) 24452452.
[19] C.T. Crowe, M.P. Sharma, D.E. Stock, Trans.
ASME J. Fluid Eng. 99 (1977) 325332.
[20] W.E. Ranz, W.R. Marshall, Chem. Eng. Prog. 48
(1952) 141146.
[21] R.B. Bird, W.E. Stewart, E.N. Lightfoot, Transport
Phenomena, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc, NY,
2002, pp. 704706.
[22] C. Hasse, N. Peters, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2005)
27552762.
[23] C. Felsch, M. Gauding, C. Hasse, S. Vogel, N.
Peters, Proc. Combust. Inst. 32 (2009) 27752783.
[24] E. Doran, H. Pitsch, A multi-dimensional amelet
model for ignition in multi-feed combustion system,
Report No. TF-121, Stanford University, 2011.
[25] H. Pitsch, available at http://www.stanford.edu/
group/pitsch/FlameMaster.htm.
[26] C.T. Bowman, R.K. Hanson, D.F. Davidson, W.C.
Gardiner, Jr., V. Lissianski, G.P. Smith, D.M.
Golden, M. Frenklach, M. Goldenberg, GRI-Mech
2.11, 1997, available at http://www.me.berke-
ley.edu/gri-mech/.
[27] M. Ihme, Y.C. See, Combust. Flame 157 (2010)
18501862.