Post on 14-Aug-2020
transcript
* Corresponding author: wang1695@purdue.edu
8th
U. S. National Combustion Meeting
Organized by the Western States Section of the Combustion Institute
and hosted by the University of Utah
May 19-22, 2013
Ignition and Flame Development in Mixing Layers with
Applications to CI Engines
Zhiyan Wang1*
John Abraham1,2
1School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2088, USA
2School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005,
Australia
Abstract
In prior studies, ignition and flame development in compositionally stratified n-heptane/air
mixtures have been studied under uniform high pressure and temperature conditions with
application to compression-ignition engines. It was concluded that ignition occurs in the rich
mixture and an ignition front then propagates to the flame stabilization location near the
stoichiometric mixture fraction. The front propagation was accelerated with increasing
gradients when the gradients were smaller than a critical value but decelerated with
increasing gradients when the gradients were higher than the critical value. In this work, more
realistic engine conditions where both compositional and thermal stratification are
simultaneously present are studied. It is shown that ignition again occurs in the rich mixture,
but the mixture fraction values are lower than in the uniform temperature case. Ignition delay
is reduced with increasing stratification gradient until a critical value is reached after which
ignition delay grows as gradient further increases. The mixture fraction where ignition
initiates is less sensitive to changes in level of compositional stratification than to initial
temperature variation. The studies are then extended to a biodiesel surrogate and to an
application relevant to a dual-fuelled engine.
1. Introduction
In direct-injection diesel engines in which fuel is injected into the combustion
chamber, there is insufficient mixing of the fuel and air prior to the start of combustion. This
results in a mixture where compositional and thermal stratification are present. It is important
to understand the influence of the stratification on ignition and flame development in such
engines because these processes influence the phasing of the combustion with respect to the
chamber volume which, in turn, influences engine performance (Heywood, 1988). There
have been prior studies of the influence of compositional stratification on ignition
characteristics at elevated pressure and temperature conditions (Mastorakos et al., 1997; Im
et al., 1998; Sreedhara and Lakshmisha, 2000; Mastorakos, 2009; Bansal et al., 2009;
Owston and Abraham, 2010; Mukhopadhyay and Abraham, 2011). In the present work, the
focus will be on autoigniting mixing layers.
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[2]
Mastorakos et al. (1997) performed two-dimensional direct-numerical simulation
of methane/air diffusion layers at pressure of 1 bar and temperature ranging from 1000 K to
1200 K. They found that ignition delay is reduced by increasing initial diffusion layer
thickness. Pitsch and Peters (1998) studied the influence of scalar dissipation rate on
autoignition of n-heptane/air mixture using a one-dimensional flamelet model and observed
that decreasing scalar dissipation rate will facilitate ignition. Mukhopadhyay and Abraham
(2011) performed a one-dimensional simulation of a reacting laminar n-heptane/air diffusion
layer at uniform pressure and initial temperature of 40 bar and 1000 K, respectively and
observed that ignition always occurred in the rich mixture and then a front (which they
referred to as an “ignition front”) propagated to the flame stabilization location near the
stoichiometric mixture fraction. In addition, it was reported that the front propagation was
accelerated with increasing gradients when the gradients were smaller than a critical value
but decelerated with increasing gradients when the gradients were higher than the critical
value.
This paper is an extension of the work of Mukhoadhyay and Abraham (2011, 2012).
Whereas they considered primarily compositional stratification, in the present work we will
consider both compositional and thermal stratification. n-Heptane whose ignition behavior
has been quite well-understood is again selected as one of the fuels. In addition, we include a
study of the behavior of a biodiesel surrogate which is of interest in biodiesel-fuelled
compression-ignition engines. We also study the mixing layers of n-heptane and a
homogeneous-charge of a less reactive fuel and air that is of relevance to natural gas engines
in which a pilot quantity of diesel fuel is injected to ignite the mixture (Karim, 1980;
Korakianitis et al., 2011). These studies are also relevant to homogeneous-charge
compression-ignition engines where a pilot quantity of more reactive fuel is injected to
control ignition of a less reactive fuel (Hanson et al., 2012).
This paper is structured in the following manner. The numerical model and reaction
mechanisms employed are briefly discussed in Section 2. Section 3 presents the results
pertaining to n-heptane combustion in air, biodiesel surrogate combustion in air, and finally
n-heptane combustion in a homogeneous mixture of methane and air. The paper then closes
with summary and conclusions in Section 4.
2. Computational Methods and Setup
The FLEDS numerical code which has been employed by Mukhopadhyay and
Abraham (2011) for their studies of ignition in mixing layers is employed in this work. The
code has been employed in many other studies in the past (Anders et al., 2008; Owston and
Abraham, 2010; Venugopal and Abraham, 2008; Mukhopadhyay and Abraham, 2011, 2012;
Reddy and Abraham, 2011). The prior papers may be consulted for details of the numerical
method. In brief, the code employs the sixth-order compact finite-difference scheme of Lele
(1992) to solve mass, momentum, energy and species conservation equations for
compressible, multi-component reacting gaseous mixtures. At the boundaries, non-reflective
outflow conditions are specified. Chemical kinetic source terms are computed through an
interface with CHEMKIN-like subroutines (Kee et al., 1999). The code is written in
FORTRAN 90 using the message passing interface (MPI) library for parallel computing. In
addition to the FLEDS code, a 1-D laminar flamelet code is also employed to solve the
unsteady flamelet equations in the mixture fraction ( ) space for some of the studies
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[3]
(Gopalakrishnan, 2003). This code has also been discussed in the literature (Gopalakrishnan,
2003; Venugopal, 2008).
Studies involving n-heptane autoignition in air and methane/air homogeneous
mixture are carried out using a 37-species, 70-step reaction mechanism developed by Peters
et al. (2002). For validation purpose, a more detailed oxidation mechanism for n-heptane
developed by Seiser et al. (2002) is employed which consists of 159 species and 1540
reaction steps. A 115-species, 460-step chemical mechanism (Luo et al., 2012;
http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~tlu/mechs/mechs.htm) is employed to model the oxidation of the
biodiesel surrogate.
Figure 1 shows a typical computational domain that is adopted for carrying out our
numerical simulations with the FLEDS code. The domain measures 0.25 and 2.5 mm in x-
and y-directions, respectively, and a uniform mesh with 25 x 250 points is used. This gives
rise to a spatial resolution of 10 µm in both directions. Pressure condition at 40 bar is
imposed and the temperature of air is chosen to be 1000 K while that of the fuel is 373 K to
emulate the typical engine conditions. The mass fraction of fuel and temperature distribution
inside the domain shown in Fig. 1 is given by a hyperbolic tangent profile, which is described
mathematically by the equation below:
(1)
Here, is a general parameter that in this specific case represents mass fraction of species
and temperature . and are the upper and lower values of the variable respectively.
represents the location where is half-way between the maximum and minimum values and
it has been chosen to coincide with the center of the computational domain to achieve
symmetry. The parameter is a measure of the diffusion layer thickness. For a hyperbolic
tangent profile, the separation between 99 percentile and 1 percentile of the distribution is
typically three times the value. Note that the size of the computational domain is varied for
different values of . Furthermore, the spatial resolution is selected to ensure that there are at
least 10 cells within the diffusion layer thickness (Vervisch and Poinsot, 1998).
Fig. 1 Schematic of the computational domain.
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[4]
The 1-D laminar flamelet code solves the flamelet equations in the mixture fraction
( ) space rather than in the physical space. The Z-space is discretized by a non-uniform grid
with points concentrated near the stoichiometric mixture fraction, . Instead of
specifying a characteristic length scale , the scalar dissipation rate, is
used to represent the compositional gradient between fuel and air. Such a profile of scalar
dissipation rate is obtained from the initial distribution of as a function of mixture fraction
for various diffusion layer thicknesses in FLEDS. In the flamelet code, unity Lewis number
is assumed whereas the FLEDS code uses mixture-averaged diffusivities for the species.
3. Results and Discussion
We will initially present results for a mixing layer thickness of 120 µm. Figure 2
shows the evolution of temperature profiles as a function of mixture fraction when the
initial temperature is uniform in the computational domain at 1000 K and Fig. 3 shows the
same profiles when the initial air temperature is 1000 K and the fuel temperature is 373 K. In
Fig. 2 the initial rise in temperature is observed at a time of approximately 0.15 ms at
and as the temperature increases, the value of at which the peak temperature is observed
becomes smaller and finally stabilizes at which is close to the stoichiometric
value, . The stabilization occurs at approximately 0.25 ms. Mukhopadhyay
and Abraham (2011) have characterized this propagation of the “front” from the initial
ignition location to the stabilization location as an “ignition front propagation” suggesting
that it is primarily driven by ignition occurring at progressively lower values of . Hence, in
this case the duration of ignition front propagation is about 0.1 ms. In Fig. 3, the initial rise in
temperature is observed at a time of approximately 0.19 ms at of approximately 0.073. This
difference in value of Z with respect to the previous case is a result of the variation in
temperature with the higher temperature occurring on the air side and preferentially
promoting ignition. After the initial rise in temperature, the location of peak temperature
initially shifts to richer , suggesting that the richer Z is primed for ignition provided
temperature are sufficiently high, and then shifts back towards the leaner and stabilizes at
. The shift occurs at about 0.3 ms. The flame stabilization occurs at a time of about
0.45 ms. In other words, the duration of ignition front propagation is approximately 0.25 ms.
Fig 2. Temperature evolution as a function of
mixture fraction for and uniform initial
temperature at 1000K.
Fig 3. Temperature evolution as a function of
mixture fraction for and initial air
temperature at 1000K and fuel (n-heptane)
temperature at 373K.
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[5]
Figures 4 and 5 show results for cases with initial of 30 µm and 400 µm,
respectively. Both simulations are performed under realistic temperature conditions where the
fuel is at 373 K and air at 1000 K. It is again shown that initial temperature rise occurs at a
rich mixture fraction where is approximately 0.091. The ignition front initially travels
toward the richer mixture as in Fig. 3. For , it appears that the shift toward the
richer mixture fraction is more pronounced compared to the previous case where Figure 6 shows the at the location of maximum temperature rise as a function of
time for the three cases where . It can be seen that for the case
where , the ignition front shifts to before it moves in the opposite
direction toward the leaner mixture at about 0.57 ms, and eventually reaches steady-state at
.
It is interesting to note that the instant when ignition front propagation changes
direction coincides with the onset of the second stage of ignition. Figure 7 shows the peak
temperature rise relative to the initial temperature at that location as a function of time. For
, the shift in the direction of ignition front propagation coincides with the
time when the second stage of ignition begins, i.e. at 0.57 ms and 0.32 ms, respectively. This
behavior can be explained considering that ignition of the n-heptane and air mixture is
Fig 6. Mixture Fraction at the location of maximum
temperature rise inside the domain as a function of
time for .
Fig 7. Maximum temperature rise inside the domain
as a function of time for .
Fig 4. Temperature evolution in mixture fraction
space for and initial air temperature at
1000K and fuel (n-heptane) temperature at 373K.
Fig 5. Temperature evolution in mixture fraction
space for and initial air temperature at
1000K and fuel (n-heptane) temperature at 373K.
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[6]
facilitated by two factors: 1) high local temperature, and 2) relatively high local mixture
fraction. In the presence of both compositional and thermal gradient, ignition will not occur at
, as in the uniform temperature case of Fig. 2, since the richer mixture also corresponds
to lower local temperature. Instead ignition starts at the location where the combined effects
of local temperature and mixture fraction provide the optimal condition for ignition. During
the first stage of ignition, heat generated from oxidation of n-heptane at the location of
ignition diffuses down the thermal gradient toward the richer mixture making it more
favorable for ignition. This results in the initial shift of ignition front toward the richer
mixture. In this stage, mixture fraction is more dominant than temperature in the ignition
process. When the second stage of ignition starts, it is accompanied by rapid generation of
heat and a relatively large increase in temperature. The temperature then becomes the
dominant factor and consequently ignition front reverses and propagates toward the lean
mixture which is at a much higher temperature. In fact, this second stage of propagation may
be more akin to flame front propagation rather than ignition front propagation.
A similar trend is evident in Fig. 5 that illustrates the evolution of temperature profiles
for a case where . Ignition is again initiated in the rich mixture and propagates
toward the richer mixture in the first stage of ignition. After the second stage of ignition
occurs at 0.32 ms, the ignition front travels into the leaner mixture and eventually stabilizes
near the location where composition of fuel/air mixture is close to stoichiometric
Fig 8. Time evolution of maximum temperature inside the computational domain under various compositional and
thermal gradients for different values of for n-heptane and air combustion.
Figure 8 shows the evolution of the maximum temperature in the domain as a function
of time for several values of . Here we will define the ignition delay to be the time elapsed
for the peak temperature inside the domain to reach 1500 K. It is evident from Fig. 8 that as
increases from 30 µm to 120 µm, ignition delay is shortened from 0.57 ms to 0.31 ms.
However, when diffusion thickness further increases from 120 µm to 400 µm, the opposite
trend is observed where ignition delay grows longer from 0.31 ms to 0.33 ms. This suggests
that ignition front propagation is initially accelerated by decreasing the diffusion layer
thickness and hence by increasing diffusion gradients until a critical diffusion gradient is
reached after which further increase in diffusion gradients will increase ignition delay. In this
specific case, the critical gradient corresponds to the composition profile of .
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[7]
This behavior is consistent with the observation made earlier by Mukhopadhyay and
Abraham (2011) under uniform initial temperature conditions.
In order to verify the results we have obtained are not mechanism-dependent, the
same set of computations were repeated in the flamelet code using a more detailed 159-
species, 1540-step chemical mechanism (Seiser et al., 2002). Results have indicated that the
influence of composition gradient on ignition delay exhibits the same trend as characterized
in the FLEDS simulations above and the critical gradient is again found at a diffusion
thickness of 120 µm.
It is interesting to examine if the behavior that has been discussed above is shown by
other fuels or is specific to n-heptane. As reported by Mukhopadhyay and Abraham (2011),
and shown by our work with the flamelet code, results similar to those discussed above can
be obtained by solving the flamelet equations. A biodiesel surrogate is selected for this part of
the study (Luo et al., 2012). The study is carried out by solving the flamelet equations
because direct simulations with the larger biodiesel-surrogate chemical kinetic mechanism
are computationally intensive in FLEDS. Figure 9 shows the evolution of the maximum
temperature inside the domain as a function of time for the same values of shown in Fig. 8.
Unlike the behavior of n-heptane/air, the dependence between ignition delay and the initial
compositional gradient is monotonic: as increases from 30 µm to 1 mm, i.e. compositional
gradient decreases, the ignition delay, i.e. time to reach 1500 K, decreases monotonically
from 1.8 ms to 0.4 ms. In other words, there is no change in behavior of ignition delay with
respect to as observed earlier.
Fig 9. Maximum temperature within the computational domain as a function of time under various compositional
and thermal gradients for biodiesel and air combustion.
The difference between the dependence of n-heptane/air and biodiesel/air autoignition
on compositional gradients is an interesting topic that is worthy of further investigations. As
discussed by Mukhopadhyay and Abraham (2011), there are two competing effects that
control the behavior: on the one hand, high gradient leads to faster loss of radicals and heat
which retard ignition, i.e. ignition delay increases; on the other hand, high gradient also
facilitates faster ignition front propagation from the initial location of ignition to the
stabilization location near the stoichiometric mixture fraction, i.e. ignition delay decreases. In
the case of biodiesel autoignition, it appears that the first stage of ignition is dominated by the
former effect as evident in Fig. 9 that time elapsed to reach second stage of ignition increases
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[8]
as compositional gradient decreases. It is only in the second stage of ignition when the latter
effect starts to manifest. As shown in Fig. 10, the movement from the rich mixture fraction
toward the stabilization point slows down as is increased, i.e. gradient decreases. However
in the case of n-heptane reaction, the critical gradient effect discussed earlier is manifest in
the first stage of ignition. The detailed reasoning behind this behavior is still unclear and it
will require further studies.
Fig 10. Time evolution of mixture fraction at the location of peak temperature.
The study presented above is of interest to both conventional diesel engines and
advanced engines like homogeneous-charge compression-ignition engines when stratification
is employed to control the rise of pressure and/or formation of carbon monoxide and
unburned hydrocarbons. As discussed in the Introduction section, there is another
compression-ignition scenario which is of interest to homogeneous-charge compression-
ignition engines and lean-burn natural gas fuelled engines. In both cases, a more reactive fuel
that auto-ignites easily can be employed to control ignition. In this situation, the more
reactive fuel is injected into the chamber where air and less reactive fuel are premixed. To
study the ignition characteristics of this system, computations will be carried out in a domain
similar to the one shown in Fig. 1. However, the air side will be replaced by a homogeneous
mixture of air and fuel. In the present work, methane, a surrogate for natural gas fuel, will be
the fuel.
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[9]
Fig 11. Initial temperature (a) and fuel mass fraction (b) profiles in the y-direction (see Fig. 1) for the dual-fuel setup
with equivalence ratio of for the CH4/air mixture.
Figure 11 shows the initial temperature and fuel mass fractions as a function of the y-
coordinate of Fig. 1. The initial temperature of n-heptane is at 373K while that of the
CH4/air mixture is 1000 K. Four homogeneous mixture compositions corresponding to
, are studied. The evolution of the maximum temperature rise over
the initial temperature at the same location is shown in Fig. 12. It is seen that for all four
equivalence ratios of CH4/air mixture at , the initial rise in
temperature occur at approximately 0.15 ms and the second stage of ignition occurs at
approximately 0.34 ms. Figure 13 illustrates the y-location in the domain where the local
temperature has the greatest increment over the initial value as a function of time. As
equivalence ratios of CH4/air mixture are varied from 0.5 to 1.0, the y-location where
temperature first rises stays roughly constant at 0.18 mm below the midpoint of the
computational domain where the mass fraction of n-heptane is around 0.048. Note that this
mass fraction is significantly lower than in the n-heptane/air mixing layer. The presence of
the methane has a noticeable effect on the location of ignition.
This y-location, representative of the ignition front, will initially shift toward the n-
heptane side similar to the single-fuel cases of n-heptane and biodiesel until it reaches about
0.13 mm below the center point, covering a total distance of 50 µm which is almost half of
the diffusion layer thickness. Then it reverses and propagates toward the homogeneous
mixture of methane and air. This propagation is that of a flame front which is similar to flame
propagation in the premixed combustion. On the whole, the ignition behavior during the first
stage of ignition is almost identical for all four cases. In the second stage of ignition, the
effects of equivalence ratio begin to manifest. From Fig. 12, it is evident that the richer the
premixed mixture is, the longer it takes for the flame to reach the steady peak temperature.
Such observation is consistent with results shown in Fig 13: as equivalence ratio increases
from 0.5 to 1.0, the speed at which flame front travels decreases from 2.1 ms-1
to 1.7 ms-1
.
This occurs because the combination of n-heptane and methane mass fractions makes the
mixture overly rich as the methane mass fraction increases, thereby decreasing flame speed.
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[10]
4. Summary and Conclusions
Computations of autoignition behavior in compositionally and thermally stratified
n-heptane/air mixtures reveal that ignition occurs in the rich mixture and an ignition front
then propagates into the richer mixture. Following the second stage of ignition, the front
propagates into the leaner mixture and stabilizes near the stoichiometric mixture fraction. As
compositional gradients are increased, ignition delay initially decreases but then increases.
This behavior reflects the balance between the competing effects of increasing loss of
radicals/heat and faster front propagation as gradient is increased. In the case of biodiesel
ignition, two stages of ignitions are observed similar to n-heptane reactions but with the
important difference that the critical gradient observed in n-heptane autoignition is absent, i.e.
ignition delay decreases monotonically as gradients decrease. In the case of autoignition of n-
heptane in a background of premixed methane/air mixture, the early stages of ignition are
controlled by the autoignition characteristics of n-heptane/air mixture but the time for a stable
flame front to develop is controlled by the local equivalence ratio based on n-heptane and
methane concentrations.
Acknowledgements
Financial support provided by Caterpillar, Inc. is gratefully acknowledged. The
authors thank Professor Vinicio Magi for useful discussions related to this work and his
assistance with the numerical code. Computational resources for this work were provided by
the National Institute of Computational Sciences (NICS) at University of Tennessee, and by
the National Computing Infrastructure (NCI), Australia.
Fig 12. Maximum temperature rise as a function of
time for with initial fuel (n-heptane)
temperature at 373K and CH4/air mixture
temperature at 1000K of various .
Fig 13. Time evolution of the y-location where
maximum temperature rise is observed for with initial fuel (n-heptane) temperature at
373K and CH4/air mixture temperature at 1000K of
various .
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[11]
References
Anders, J., Magi, V., and Abraham, J. 2008. A Computational Investigation of the Interaction of Pulses in Two-
Pulse Jets. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications, 54(11), 999-1021.
Bansal, G., Im, H.G., and Lee, S. 2009. Autoignition of Non-premixed n-Heptane/Air Counterflow Subjected to
Unsteady Scalar Dissipation Rate. Proc. Combust. Inst., 32, 1083-1090.
Gopalakrishnan, V. 2003. Modeling Combustion Diesel Jets - The Free Jet Regime. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
Hanson, R., Curran, S., Wagner, R., Kokjohn, S., Splitter, D., and Reitz, R.D. 2012. Piston Bowl Optimization
for RCCI Combustion for a Light-Duty Multicylinder Engine. SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-0380.
Heywood, J.B. 1988. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals. Mc-Graw Hill, Inc., New York.
Im, H.G., Chen, J.H., and Law, C.K. 1998. Ignition of hydrogen-air mixing layer in turbulent flows. Proc.
Combust. Inst., 27, 1047-1056.
Karim, G.A. 1980. A Review of Combustion Processes in the Dual-Fuel Engine – the Gas Diesel Engine.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 6, 277-285.
Kee, R.J., Rupley, F.M., Miller, J.A., Coltrin, M.E., Grcar, J.F., Meeks, E., Moffat, H.K., Lutz, A.E., Dixon-
Lewis, G., Smooke, M.D., Warnatz, J., Evans, G.H., Larson, R.S., Mitchell, R.E., Petzold, L.R.,
Reynolds, W.C., Caracotsios, M., Stewart, W.E., and Glarborg, P. 1999. CHEMKIN Collection
Release 3.5, Reaction Design Inc., San Diego, CA, 94551-0969.
Korakianitis, T., Namasivayam, A.M., and Crookes, R.J. 2011. Natural Gas Fueled Spark-Ignition (SI) and
Compression-Ignition (CI) Engine Performance and Emissions. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 37, 89-
112.
Lele, S. K. 1992. Compact Finite Difference Schemes with Spectral-Like Resolution. Journal of Computational
Physics, 103, 104-129.
Luo, Z., Plomer, M., Lu, T.F., Som, S., Longman, D.E., Sarathy, S.M., and Pitz, W.J. 2012. A Reduced
Mechanism for Biodiesel Surrogates for Compression Ignition Engine Applications. Fuel, 99, 143–153.
(http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~tlu/mechs/mechs.htm)
Mastorakos, E., Baritaud, T.A.,and Poinsot, T.J. 1997. Numerical Simulations of Autoignition in Turbulent
Mixing Flows. Combust. Flame, 109, 198–223.
Mastorakos, E. 2009. Ignition of Turbulent Non-premixed Flames. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science,
35, 57-97.
Mukhopadhyay, S., and Abraham, J. 2011. Influence of Compositional Stratification on Autoignition in n-
Hepane/Air Mixtures. Combust. Flame, 158, 1064–1075.
Mukhopadhyay, S., and Abraham, J. 2012. Influence of Heat Release and Turbulence on Scalar Dissipation Rate
in Autoigniting n-Heptane/Air Mixtures. Combust. Flame, 159, 2883-2895.
Owston, R., and Abraham, J. 2010. Numerical Study of Hydrogen Triple Flame Response to Mixture
Stratification, Ambient Temperature, Pressure, and Water Vapor Concentration. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(10), 4723-4735.
Peters, N., Paczko, G., Seiser, R., and Seshadri, K. 2002. Temperature Cross-Over and Non-Thermal Runaway
at Two-Stage Ignition of n-Heptane. Combust. Flame, 128, 38-59.
Pitsch, H., and Peters, N. 1998. Investigation of the Ignition Process of Sprays Under Diesel Engine Conditions
Using Reduced n-Heptane Chemistry. SAE Paper No. 982463.
Paper # 070IC-0130 Topic: Internal Combustion Engines
[12]
Reddy, H., and Abraham, J. 2011. A Numerical Study of Vortex Interactions with Flames Developing from
Ignition Kernels in Lean Methane/Air Mixtures. Combust. Flame, 158(3), 401-415.
Seiser, R., Pitsch, H., Seshadri, K., Pitz, W.J., and Curran, H.J. 2000. Extinction and Autoignition of n-Heptane
in Counterflow Configuration. Proc. Combust. Inst., 28, 2029-2037.
Sreedhara, S., and Lakshmisha, K. N. 2000. Direct Numerical Simulation of Autoignition in a Non-premixed
Turbulent Medium. Proc. Combust. Inst., 28, 25-33.
Venugopal, R. 2008. Numerical Simulations of Flame Dynamics in the Near-Field of High-Reynolds Number
Jets. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Venugopal, R., and Abraham, J. 2008. Numerical Investigations of Reignition in Vortex-Perturbed n-Heptane
Nonpremixed Flames. AIAA Journal, 46(10), 2479-2497.
Vervisch, L., and Poinsot, T. 1998. Direct Numerical Simulation of Non-Premixed Turbulent Flames. Annu.
Rev. Fluid Mech., 30, 655-691.