Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Theory of Flammability Limits - Conductive Convective Wall Losses
The Theory of Flammability Limits - Conductive Convective Wall Losses
By Martin Hertzberg
BUREAU OF MINES
Hertzberg, Martin
Bibliography p. 24-25-
convection.
(Su)8 ef The upward limit burning velocity for quenching by flame stretch
ii
quenching.
su (max) Tne maximum burning velocity for a coal dust-air flame which occurs
at a concentration c . .
m ( ma x)
t The time.
T The temperature.
T The characteristic heating time for the gas in the flame front.
63S
ill
CONTENTS
Abstract 1
Introduction 1
Finite heat capacity effects; particle lag in the flame front; the
Conclusions 23
References 24
ILLUSTRATIONS
TABLES
by
Martin Hertzberg
ABSTRACT
through tubes of finite size. The limit burning velocity for conductive-
2r0
of loss area to propagation area relates to the shape of the flame front and
with previously defined limit velocities for systems mixed by natural convec-
tion allows one to assess the influence of tube dimensions and boundary
propagation.
to-volume ratio OvL/r0) is simply replaced by the powder's surface area per
that observed for tubes, and the problem is complicated by the finite heat
capacities of the powders and particle lag effects in the flame front.
INTRODUCTION
that various competing processes can dissipate power from a combustion wave
and thus quench its propagation at some characteristically low limit velocity.
Four competing processes and one complication were involved: (a) free,
Pittsburgh, Pa.
(d) selective, diffusional demixing (the complication); and (e) flow gradient
effects (flame stretch). It was shown that for premixed gases, the "normal,"
must propagate into cold gas whose motion is also influenced by buoyancy.
Near the top of the flame kernel, the cold surroundings must move outward,
parting from the upward path of burned-gas kernel. In the equatorial regions,
force couple. Upward propagation thus occurs into a velocity gradient in the
cold gas, and at some low, but finite, propagation velocity the flame is
the limit burning velocity is simply derivable as the balance between the
For upward propagation, it was shown that the blowoff limit velocity was
(Su)a ei ~ ^ (Su)a . These formulae were shown to properly predict both the
compositional dependence of the lean limit for a variety of fuels and the
Thus it was shown that the very existence of "normal" limits of flammability
and buoyancy forces, and that this competition results in the presence of a
occur only if the "true" or ideal burning velocity exceeds the limit velocity.
Compositions whose ideal burning velocities are less than the limit velocity
are quenched by buoyancy and thus have zero values for their real burning
velocity.
effect on the actual structure of diffusion flames (11) . The concept led to
a new view of diffusion flame structure which is at variance with the tradi-
tional one but which is much more consistent with recent data (15).
flame propagation through tubes, which concept has already been shown to be
tion energy to their surroundings by heat conduction through the tube walls
(since the walls are initially colder than the burned gas). This loss process
generates steep temperature gradients in the gas near the wall and a quenched
quenched boundary layer is far removed from the central regions and does not
quenched boundary layer converge inward and soon begin to influence the bulk
esses involve the heat flow vectors perpendicular to the propagation direction.
As indicated in figure 1, the losses not only are in the "rim" regions where
the flame zone contacts the wall but also come from the burned gas regions
The problem has been studied by von Elbe and Lewis (21), Spalding (20),
Friedman (5), Potter and Berlad (17), and Gerstein and Stine (6), and the
Potter (16). The governing equation may be obtained by the following elemen-
Quenched
boundary layer
Suc/>(Tb-Tu)
-Additional perimeter
area, (/3-D Ac
area,Ac=2TTr0.AX
FIGURE 1.
- Source and sink power densities for the wall-loss quenching of a flame
propagating in a tube.
energy feedback rate from the burned to the unburned gas that maintains the
area of flame zone. As shown in figure 1, this power density is axial and
tube wall that is given by (Tb -Tu ) = (Tb-Tu) Nu. This heat flow is the
r0
rate of loss of sensible enthalpy from the burned gas per unit area of tube
wall. Now for the axial propagation of a planar flame front in a circular
tube, the area of unburned gas that is activated by the combustion power
density is simply the cross-sectional area, irr0 . For the competing radial
heat loss to the tube wall, the area involved is the flame-zone contact
perimeter area 2irr0Ax plus an additional perimeter area in the burned gases
just behind the flame zone. The total area involved for the heat loss flux
factor.
(S ). , , cp (T -T ) irr 2 .
u ideal b u 0
(Tb~Tu) Nu 2iT3r0Ax-
The limit velocity for process b is obtained when the ideal combustion
source power is dissipated as heat loss power. Equating source power and
gation through tubes of decreasing diameter is simply 2r0 , and the limit
dg =
RI 8127 (8).
quenching diameter data with the combustion and transport properties of the
flammable gas (16-17) . However, it should be recognized that one is not here
energy feedback rate from burned to unburned gas that is necessary to main-
the derivation, in the case of equation 2, the Peclet constant is the ratio
gation at Su) relative to the rate of energy transfer in the orthogonal direc-
tion through the quenched boundary layer at the wall. The mechanism of energy
power for laminar, adiabatic flame propagation was compared with the radial
heat loss power to the wall. In reality, as one approaches the limit, flame
appear from the flame front to the cooler unburned gases. Thus in a system
propagation is possible only if the Peclet number exceeds some critical value;
that is, if the axial combustion source power exceeds the radial power loss.
Spalding's solution (20) for the critical Peclet number is 60 for circu-
lar tubes, and this agrees with the earlier calculations of von Elbe and
tion through plates. For plates, the ratio of loss area to flame area is
half that for tubes, and hence the critical Peclet constant should be 0.71
ally obtained for relatively short channels of finite length, whereas the
Since shorter tubes are less effective quenchers than tubes of infinite
tematically smaller than the theoretical ones. Other factors involving the
flame front curvature and flow convergence at the tube inlet should also
influence the measured value of the critical Peclet number for wall-quenching.
number is controlled by the ratio of the contact perimeter loss area to the
flame-zone cross sectional area. For the assumed planar flame front in a
tube of circular cross section, that ratio is 2gAx/rQ = 23a/r0Su. Note that
this ratio of loss area to source area varies inversely with Su. An exact
in three dimensions. This uncertain factor is thus lumped into the Peclet
One must recognize, however, that the above ratio is necessarily influ-
enced by variations in flame zone shape, and that the overall balance may be
exert some influence on the critical Peclet number at the wall quenching
limit. These factors influence the precise details of the flow structure
on both sides of the flame front and near the walls, and they may add a flame-
reveal significant differences in both the flame and the flow structure for
the three directions of propagation. Levy's studies (13), for example, showed
and that the curvature tends to be maintained even during flame quenching; but
tion the front is essentially flat. The recent observations of Sapko, Furno,
and Kuchta (18) of the structure of near limit flames in a very large scale
the upward and downward limits, the "normal" spherical flame is replaced by
is precisely what one would expect. That is, the buoyant acceleration vector
is normal to the flame front at the top of the sphere, and hence the entire
flame-stretch factor for the moment). At other points in the upper hemisphere,
the buoyant acceleration is diminished by the cosine of the angle between the
of the flame kernel. At the very bottom of the sphere, the entire vector
by the cosine function. The net effect for downward propagation is to reduce
shape for free-space propagation, even to the extent of reversing the curva-
ture and causing the flame front to dimple inward at the bottom of the sphere
when the buoyant velocity begins to exceed the gravity-free flame speed (18).
influence the critical Peclet constant. Consider first propagation from the
open end of a tube after planar ignition. Neglect buoyancy for the moment
and allow the wave to propagate at Su into the initially static, cold gas.
Consider the details of the flow structure generated by the combustion force
field at the flame front, as it interacts with the wall boundary constraints.
This flow structure is described by Jost (12), who showed that propagation of
the flame front as a flat, planar wave soon becomes impossible. The gas
entering the flame front from the unburned side must adjust to a Pouiseille
velocity profile on the burned side, and it must also uniformly accelerate to
flame surface, and accordingly the flame front takes on a paraboloid shape in
steady-state propagation, and vortices appear in the cold gas zone just ahead
Su Unburned gas
Burned gas
Resultant flow
Combustion force
2a
Normal
jCold
Near-limit
force fields.
neglect of buoyancy is
justified.
case
, however, buoyancy
Planar
ignition
Maximum
velocity
<\ \ y
X\\ Convective
<xXx>'vortex
N/'
depicted as it approaches
accompanied by downward flow of cold gas (9-11). This convective cell motion
ure 3. The convective vortex tends to accumulate hot, burned gases near the
top of the tube and cold, unburned gases near the bottom. The buoyancy vortex
thus maintains (and enhances) propagation near the top and diminishes the rate
The resultant changes in the shape and width of the flame front are
reached in the bottom regions where the component of the buoyant retardation
velocity perpendicular to the flame front just balances the true flame speed.
Propagation will then cease in the lower region, and the flame is said to
"attach" to the top of the tube. At the horizontal limit, flame propagation
of the "attached" flame near the top of the tube is finally quenched by
in the lower regions is widened by convective and diffusive flows near the
stagnant flame front. There is a flame zone widening near the top of the tube
because of losses to the quenched boundary layer at the wall. The maximum
horizontal propagation rate should be just below the top of the tube, where
that is induced by the convective vortex in all regions of the flame zone.
The limit velocity is obtained by balancing the buoyancy force couple that
varying size are graphically summarized in figure 4. Also shown are the burn-
ing velocity measurements of Andrews and Bradley (1), Gunter and Janisch (7),
Edmondson and Heap (3_), and Egerton and Thabet (4_) . The lean composition
limits for upward propagation are shown as upward-directed arrows. The arrow
lengths are proportional to the diameters of the tubes within which the limits
were measured.
hr Horizontal limits
d = Downward limits
d 7.5 d5.0d2.5
IiiIIiiiII
5.0
METHANE, pet
10.
downward-directed arrows,
downward-directed arrows
recent measurements of
utable to turbulence, to
The "accepted" value is 5.0 percent (^2). This is presumably the lean
of some kind of contiguous flame propagation that extends far beyond the
region of ignition.
From equation 1, one may estimate the limit burning velocity for wall
0.55 cm2/sec and setting Pe = 25 (its measured value) gives (Su)b = 6 cm/sec.
This value is about equal to (Su)a , the horizontal limit velocity for quench-
ing by natural convection. One would thus conclude that wall losses in a
the horizontal limit. But one may go a bit further. Consider the measured Su
10
data of Gunter and Janisch (the upper curve in figure 4) and the measured
figure 4). Projecting that limit composition upward until it intersects the
that this value is just equal to the sum of (Su)a and (Su)b? Note also that
the average difference in Su for the u and h values in tubes of fixed diameter
buoyancy and wall losses, the horizontal limits would correspond to the
condition
table 1. The measured lean limits in tubes of varying diameters are taken
from Coward and Jones (2). (Su)b is then calculated for the varying tube
a value for (Su)ideal , which is taken from the burning velocity data of
Gunter and Janisch (7_) or Egerton and Thabet (4). The (Su )a value for
horizontal propagation is taken as 6 cm/sec, while the (Su)a e/|. value for
not be too impressed with the precise values for each case considered in view
air mixtures that were dry to mixtures that were fully saturated at ambient
others for open-end ignition. The measured Su values are taken to be equal
to the ideal ones. This is a good assumption for mixtures above 7 percent
processes.
In any case, it seems clear that in order to obtain accurate lean limit
measurements that are independent of wall loss effects, one must satisfy the
condition (Su )b (Su )a or (Su)a>e^. If, for example, one sets (Su )b = 0.1
(Su)a to satisfy the above requirement, then the flammability tube for hori-
However, the absolute error introduced by using a 10-cm tube is at most 0.1
limits measured in larger diameter tubes are "truer" earthly limits than those
11
Tube
diameter,
cm
Measured lean
limit (2) ,
pct methane
(S>b.
cm/sec
cm/sec
cm/ sec
7.5
5.4
5.0
5.7
2.5
5.8
11
12
.90
7.8
15
30
21
.56
8.4
35
31
.45
110.0
31
25
4 2 (max)
37
.36
(2)
38
42 (max)
44
10.2
5.0
7.5
5.4
4.0
5.8
2.5
5.5
10
12
should control the downward stagnation limit. As before, the limit is given
by the condition (Su)ideal = (Su )a ^ + (Su )b . Now, however, the limit veloci-
ties for both process a and process b contain an r0-dependence. (Su)b varies
as l/ro as before, but now (Su )a depends on r0 . The sum (Su)a^ + (Su )b now
has a minimum in its r0 dependence. This is shown in figure 5, where the sum
of limit velocities for downward propagation is contrasted with the sums for
upward and horizontal propagation. In the latter two cases, as tube diameters
increase one approaches a "true" limit condition, and the limit velocity
process a.
There is no asymptotic value for large r0, there is only a broad minimum in
where most of the measurements of downward limits are made. For the curves
drawn in figure 5, an
propagating waves.
Horizontal
(Su)Q+(Su)b
(Su)a,ef+(Su)b
i i i I 11
0.5 I 5 10
TUBE DIAMETER,d0,cm
13
methane value is indeed about the leanest value observed for the downward
propagation limit.
However, the curve in figure 5 predicts that downward limits should shift
to richer values as dimensions increase for d0 > 20 cm. This is in marked con-
trast to the asymptotic behavior for the upward and horizontal curves.
Although there are reliable data to indicate that the formula for the buoyant
rise velocity of an expanding flame kernel, which was used to derive equa-
tion 4, is correct (9), there are virtually no data on the downward flame
Equation 4 and the downward curve of figure 5 predict that downward lean
limits would become richer for these larger dimensions. For example, the
one would predict a downward limit of 6.2 percent methane for the 50-cm-diam
tube. For a 100-cm-diam tube, one predicts a downward limit of 6.5 pct meth-
ane. And as indicated earlier, the downward limit should reach the stoi-
tance below the point of ignition, the effect is real in that the flame front
would never reach him if the combustible medium is of infinite volume and if
It is this later condition that suggests that the effect is indeed arti-
ficial; for if the top of the container is closed, then regardless of the
point of ignition, the buoyant rise velocity will necessarily approach zero
as the upward propagating wave approaches the closed top of the container.
Once the burned gas column can no longer rise by buoyancy, downward propaga-
tion becomes possible, and the flame front can then reach an observer situated
below the point of ignition. Such an effect is indeed observed for propaga-
of a 5.8 pct methane-air mixture. Its motion and shape are depicted by Sapko
and coworkers (18, fig. 6).1+ The mixture does not propagate at all in the
causes the fireball shape to distort markedly and to dimple inward at its
bottom. The center of mass of the distorted fireball continues to rise upward
at its buoyant velocity until it approaches the closed top of the spherical
container. As soon as it contacts the top of the sphere, its buoyant velocity
ble. The fireball is then observed to establish a flat flame front that
4The actual mixture was a ternary one containing 6.9 percent CH^j , 65.8 percent
air, and 27.3 percent N2, which is equivalent to a binary mixture of 5.8
14
finally does propagate downward and completely consumes the remainder of the
there is no impedence to the cold gas flows required to compensate for the
buoyant rise velocity of the burned gas column. As the burned gas column
rises in an open tube, cold gas exits from the top and enters from the bottom.
Clearly if the tube is closed at the top, equation 4 soon becomes inapplica-
ble, and the downward limit can no longer be a stagnation limit. If the tube
is closed at the top, and the gas is ignited at that closed end, then the cold
gas flow structure ahead of the wave is driven by the burned gas expansion
process, the boundary condition at the top of the tube, and the required
Pouiseille or turbulent velocity profile in the cold gas venting from the
flow gradient effects and flame stretch. The sum (Su )a ^ + (Su)b would then
In this sense, the buoyancy effect for downward flame propagation appears
ble for the very existence of the limits of flammability in the first place.
and the derivation of equation 1, which defines the limit burning velocity
where Pe is the critical Peclet number for wall quenching. Now for a circular
tube of length and radius r , the internal tube surface area to which com-
bustion energy is lost is 2irr . The source of combustion energy is the gas
contained in the tube, whose volume is irr02. The surface to volume ratio is
therefore A/V = 2/r0 , and it is this ratio that determines the critical dimen-
sion at which the exothermic source strength is overcome by the thermal losses
to the boundary. In terms of this surface to volume ratio, the limit burning
velocity becomes:
(A/V)
Now suppose that the wall boundary is not an external one but an internal
one. Imagine that the wall is pulverized into a powder in such a way that the
unit volume of flammable gas. In this sense, the quenching effect caused by
15
a significant difference between the internal surface area of the powder and
the surface area of a contact wall. The wall boundary can conduct heat to a
or powder has a finite heat capacity. We will evaluate the finite heat capac-
With this precaution in mind, it is assumed that these inert powder walls
can quench the flame by conductive-convective wall losses in the same way that
The surface area of dust per unit volume of gas is mrdp2 , and hence the sur-
!> Pp dp (ym)
f* M 9< in
CS ) . = 8.25 x 10
,.
u b Pp dp (ym)
The quantity of (Su ) 'b is now the limit burning velocity for quenching
With the several cautions in mind (to be discussed in the following sec-
tion) , one can use (Su ) 'b as the limit burning velocity for inert particle
may also be viewed as the reduction in the ideal burning velocity caused by
the presence of the inert powder in the flammable mixture. A system is com-
pletely quenched by the inert powder when that reduction in burning velocity,
plus the reduction caused by buoyant quenching, is equal to the ideal value;
that is, when (Su ) 'b + (Su )a = (Su)ideal . However, if the flame is not
quenched, the presence of thermal losses to the inert additive is still felt
by the propagating flame, and its real burning velocity is reduced by (Su ) 'b .
(9)
dCpd
mpp
Equating the increase in (Su) 'b for a given Cm with the reduction in
Pe . -
16
Smoot and Horton (19) have studied the effect of added rock dust (CaC03)
and Alumina (A1203) powders on the burning velocity of methane air mixtures.
Their data are used in table 2, and the resultant values for Pe calculated
from their data and equation 10. The addition of the powdered inert dusts
results not only in thermal quenching by heat conduction to the additive, but
addition of the dust. This increase results in radiative losses, which are
is necessary to subtract this small value of (Su)c from the measured ASU
The resultant Peclet numbers for inert quenching average to about Pe = 100.
Although this value is only somewhat higher than the theoretical wall loss
quenching value of P = 60, one cannot be too impressed with the result that
the 20ym alumina particle was no less effective than the 9um particle.
Particle diameter,
Methane
in air,
pct methane
Measured ASu/ACm,
cm/sec
ds , pm
Pe1
mg/1
10
10
10
9.7
8.0
12.0
0.024
.023
80
96
77
.029
9.7
8.0
9.7
0.018
.021
.018
78
92
173
20
may be obtained from the Smoot and Horton (19) data on the burning velocity
of coal dust-air flames. Their data show that burning velocities peak at
coal dust concentrations that depend markedly on particle size. For fine
dusts, the maximum burning velocity, (Su) (max), occurs at relatively low
dust concentrations, whereas for coarser dusts the maximum appears at a much
The reason for this behavior relates to the fact that the overall rate
volatiles (10); however, the coarser the dust, the more difficult it is for
the entire particle to devolatilize during its passage through the flame
front. The coarser the particle, the smaller is the fraction of its com-
17
of combustible volatiles. For the coarse coals, only the shallow shell near
to flame propagation. For the finer coals, most of the coal particle devolati-
In either case, the excess mass of coal (or the remaining char residue)
Su(max). Table 3 presents the Peclet constants, calculated from equation 10,
associated with the reduction in Su (max) by the excess inert dust. For the
pp =1.4 g/cm3.
Particle
diameter,
ds , ym
Su (max)
cm/ sec
Cm (max)
mg/1
Measured ASu/ACm,
cm/ sec
Pe1
mg/1
7.3
12
30
32
250
400
1,500
0.0588
.0406
.0186
83
95
27
10
73
The average constant for the quenching of excess coal dust in the
in table 2 for the quenching of methane-air mixtures by rock dust and alumina
powders.
quenching, was derived under the assumption that heat was continuously being
conducted through the boundary layer and through the interior surface to a
medium of infinite heat capacity. In effect, it was assumed that the cold
wall, initially at Tu, remained cold at Tu during and after the passage of
the combustion wave. This assumption was included in the subsequent deriva-
tion of equation 8. If, however, the wall boundary has a finite heat capacity
(relative to the burned gas volume it contains), then the temperature gradient
TT
-; and its associated heat loss to the wall would not be maintained.
This is the case for the "internal walls" of inert particles, where their
finite heat capacity may cause their wall temperature to rise significantly
above T during the passage of the flame front. If the particle mass is so
small that its temperature rises as fast as the gas temperature rises within
the flame front, then thermal losses are not maintained, and the gradient
T-T
bu
18
ratio of the dust that is important, but only its heat capacity per unit vol-
The extreme case of such a "small particle" is the case of an inert gas
mixture are heated to Tb as rapidly as the combustion products, and since they
One could argue that since the inert gas is mixed on the molecular scale,
its particle diameter d should be the molecular diameter of the nitrogen mol-
ecule. Using the liquid (or solid) N density for p and typical values for
clearly erroneous, since the N2 molecules are not cold walls that remain cool
during flame front passage, but rather their heat capacity is so small that
they precisely follow the increasing gas temperature. Data show that the mix-
36 volume pct added N2. The absurd result of 1 mg/1 was obtained because
equation 8 was used beyond its range of validity. The 1 mg/1 value could be
valid only if each N2 molecule had an infinite heat capacity and could thus
was increasing to Tb. This is physically impossible, since each molecule has
with the heat capacity per unit volume of the reacting mixture whose total
mass concentration is 1,300 mg/1. Thus, the added 1 mg/1 of N2 has a trivial
In reality, it requires some 500 mg/1 of added N2 to reduce the flame tempera-
ture from its adiabatic value of 2,200 K to its limit value near 1,500 K (8).
One obtains some additional insight into the fallacy just considered by
using the measured value of Cm - 500 mg/1 and substituting the typical values
The value is d - 3 ym. This value is clearly much larger than the molecular
diameter. But it is also significantly larger than the mean free path for
molecular collisions, L - 0.1 ym. This latter condition is necessary for the
to have their normal meanings in the fluid continuum. Clearly continuum equa-
tions were used to derive equations 1 and 8, and hence their validity is
rate problem a bit further. To what extent can inert particles added to a
combustible mixture follow the increasing gas temperatures in the flame front,
19
V p c -T = A I
p p p dt P
where V is the particle volume, c its heat capacity per gram. and A is its
cross sectional area. The laminar heat flux to the particle is equated to the
3 P p p dt P""
The specific heats per gram of particle and gas are approximately equal
Tp = I r" IT k'
Hence the ratio of particle heating time to flame gas heating time is
_ ,4 pp_ S^
closely follow the gas temperature. A T-ratio of less than unity is a physi-
cally impossible artifact (it would violate our continuum constraint that
d L). In any case, it too would mean that the particle temperature should
either case (T-ratio equal to or less than unity), the particle cannot be
considered to be a cold wall, and only its mass or total heat capacity is
significant in its quenching effect. If, on the other hand, the T-ratio is
much larger than unity, then equation 8 is applicable, and the particle should
behave as a cold wall during flame front passage. Setting a = 0.55 cm2/sec,
p /p - 3 x 103 for typical particle and gas densities, and using the limit
unity. Thus a lym-diam (or smaller) particle should closely follow the
increasing gas temperature within the flame front, and equation 8 would not
and hence the rate of temperature rise of the particle will be an order of
magnitude slower than that of the gas. Thus a lOym-diam (or larger) particle
should behave as a cold wall during flame front passage, and equation 8 should
that the particles entering the flame front would instantaneously follow the
accelerating gas flow so that their velocities were always equal to the gas
20
important for two reasons. First, there is the question of the heat transfer
transfer rate from a gas to a solid surface (or the reverse) is proportional
For small particles and low relative velocities, Re is small and Nu -> 1. This
condition was implicitly assumed in the derivation of equation 11, and only
process. If, however, the particle should lag the gas flow, Nu can exceed
significant relative motion of gas with respect to the particle, the boundary
layer thickness becomes smaller than the particle dimensions. Actually, for
cle lag effects. If the particle lags the gas flow so that its time of travel
through the flame front is significantly longer than that of the gas, then its
effective concentration in the flame front will be higher than its initial
gas flow, they pile up in the flame front and their effect is magnified.
F = Birr n u
pP
The drag force is in the direction of the relative velocity u. A more accu-
rate formula uses the factor (1 + 3/16 Re), which would increase the drag
force by a few percent in the most extreme case. We here ignore the second
term and use the Stokes' formula. Now in a coordinate system moving with the
flame front at the burning velocity, gas and particles are initially at rest
with respect to each other, and both enter the flame front at the velocity S .
The gas accelerates as it traverses through the flame front and reacts to give
under the influence of the combustion force depend on the details of the flame
simple linear increase in gas velocity as it traverses across the flame front.
Su - Su
a/S.
t = s,, +
] -1
21
Now the particle's initial velocity upon entering the flame front is also
(vp)0 = Su. Hence initially (u)0 = (vg)0 - (vp)0 =0. At any time t, while
the particle is within the flame front (that is, t < T gas), the relative
velocity is
u=v-v=
sP
S3
_u
pb
t-V
The equation of motion for the particle within the flame front is therefore,
dv ~S
~=
at L ot
dv
-2- +av - a b t = 0
dt P
9 n ^u
r pp a
The solution for an initial condition in which both particle and gas are at
, b , b -ax
v =bT 1 edL
Paa
vv
?* XL= A [i -
where A =
9p
'' vg ~ VP
vg
Thus the 20ym particle will exit the flame front with a velocity that is
98 pct of the gas velocity, hence it (and particles of smaller size) will
follow the gas flow reasonably well under limit conditions. On the other
A = 2.0 and -L-I = 0.8. For the faster flame, the 20ym particle should
22
lag the gas flow quite markedly. Its exit velocity from the flame front would
only be about one-fifth the gas velocity. Thus, although it and the gas enter
the flame front at 30 cm/sec, the gas exits at S - 180 cm/sec whereas the
20pm particle exits at only 60 cm/sec. The particle velocity has thus only
doubled while the gas velocity has increased by a factor of six. This same
magnitude of particle lag would be present even at the limit velocity for a
coarse particle 200ym in diameter. The effect of this particle lag is a sig-
front.
discussed earlier, and the particle drag effect considered above, tend to
dP
heat capacity effect limits the quenching effectiveness of very small parti-
cles so that below some critical size in the 1-10 ym range, they can no longer
act as cold walls. The particle drag effect causes the coarser particles to
lag in the accelerating gas flow of the flame front, and as they "pile up"
tion tends to compensate for the coarser particles' lower surface area. Both
of inert particles.
inert particles for which Nu -> 1. For such inert particles the boundary layer
however, the particle is not inert and can generate volatiles during its pass-
age through the flame front, then its effectiveness may be magnified in two
tive heat capacity, C , is magnified, and it would tend to remain colder for
and it would tend to remain as a cold wall down to smaller particle sizes.
Secondly, if the particle generates volatile during its passage through the
flame front, the heat transfer between the gas and the particle is no longer
gases will mix with the surrounding flame gases on a dimensional scale that
is about an order of magnitude larger than the boundary layer thickness for
an equivalent inert particle. Assuming that the gases are inert or inhibit-
ing, this mixing results in convective cooling (or chemical inhibition) that
is more effective than the pure conduction process used to derive equations 2
and 8.
molecules.
23
CONCLUSIONS
ble to the problem of the thermal quenching of flames by heat losses to exter-
nal contact walls or to internally added inert powders. For wall losses
(process b), the limit velocity is (Su)b = aPe/2r0, and in the presence of
both buoyancy and wall losses, a simple additivity principle appears to apply.
Thus, in the presence of both loss processes, the limit of flame propagation
is reached when the sum of limit velocities, (Su)a + (Su)b , is just equal to
the ideal burning velocity of the mixture, (Su)ideal (which is measured in the
absence of loss processes). The value of the critical Peclet constant, Pe,
for wall loss quenching appears to be sensitive to flame shape and boundary
cases of interest.
whether the ignited end is open or closed. These special complications are
absent for either upward or horizontal flame propagation. For those two
for heat loss quenching by added inert powders are in the range Pe - 75-175.
Because of finite heat capacity effects, the equation for (Su) 'b is applicable
particle lag effect exists. This particle lag effect increases the particle's
effective concentration in the flame front. Both the finite heat capacity
effect and the particle lag effect limit the applicability of the above
-j particle-size dependence.
24
REFERENCES
p. 445.
1948. The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, Md., 1949, pp. 110-120.
State Univ., University Park, Pa., Aug. 20-25, 1972. The Combustion
1978, 33 pp.
25
Conn., Aug. 19-24, 1956. Reinhold Pub. Co., New York, 1957, pp. 20-27.
17. Potter, A. E., Jr., and A. L. Berlad. The Effect of Fuel Type and
Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Aug. 19-24, 1956. Reinhold Pub. Co.,
18. Sapko, M. H., A. L. Furno, and J. M. Kutcha. Flame and Pressure Develop-
19. Smoot, L. D., and M. D. Horton. Exploratory Studies of Flame and Explo-
Mar. 31, 1978, 315 pp. Available at Pittsburgh Mining and Safety
Research Center.
21. von Elbe, G., and B. Lewis. Theory of Ignition, Quenching and Stabiliza-
Symp., Madison, Wisc., Sept. 7-11, 1948. The Williams and Wilkins