Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition
GT2016
June 13 – 17, 2016, Seoul, South Korea
A COMPARISON OF TURBULENT FLAME SPEED CORRELATIONS FOR
HYDROCARBON FUELS AT ELEVATED PRESSURES
Eoin M. Burke Felix Güthe
Mechanical Engineering and GE Power,
Combustion Chemistry Centre, 5401 Baden, Switzerland
National University of Ireland
Galway, Ireland
ABSTRACT
The aim of this work is to provide insight into the state-of-
the-art turbulent flame speed (ST) correlations and to determine
the most appropriate correlations to use under different turbulent
premixed combustion conditions. The accuracies of 16
correlations for ST are determined using a large volume of data
over a range of conditions. Accuracy is based on a mean absolute
percentage error (MAPE). The comparison is completed once
using the original authors’ adjustable parameters and a second
time using parameters proposed by the current work that
minimize MAPE for four different groups of data. Based on the
results of the analysis using the newly-suggested parameters, the
five most accurate correlations are then further examined to
evaluate their respective abilities to predict trends under various
turbulent conditions. While many correlations perform well over
the range of data (MAPE < 33%), no single correlation can
predict all experimentally-observed trends for methane flames
under these conditions. Further issues are found when predicting
trends for larger hydrocarbons; ethane and propane. Although
low errors are again found (MAPE < 25%), correlations are not
generally able to replicate the observed trends of experimental
data for C2H6 and C3H8. While it is commonly accepted that no
single correlation can accurately predict ST, this work has shown
that the correlation derived by Muppala provides the closest
overall agreement to the data examined. However it cannot be
defined as a general correlation. For this reason the authors have
proposed to continue development of an ST modeling tool based
on a modified version of the Cantera 1D freely propagating
laminar flame speed (SL) code. Greater cooperation in the ST
research community to expand the range of available
experimental data and better enable direct comparison of data
and correlations from different experiments is also
recommended.
INTRODUCTION
Premixed turbulent combustion is of key importance for
industrial applications. Turbulent flame speed (ST) is an
important property within turbulent premixed flames, influenced
1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
GT2016-57804
Rory F.D. Monaghan
Mechanical Engineering and
Combustion Chemistry Centre,
National University of Ireland,
Galway, Ireland
by flame chemistry, flow properties, and turbulent and laminar
transport. ST indicates the level of reactivity with the flame. For
this reason ST is used as an aid to estimate combustor reactivity
when varying parameters such as inlet temperature, pressure,
equivalence ratio and fuel composition. For example in gas
turbine development, results obtained at atmospheric pressure
are frequently transferred to engine conditions. This can result in
the introduction of errors and/or uncertainty.
ST is also an essential closure parameter in many turbulent
premixed flame modeling approaches such as Flame Surface
Density (FSD) [1], Turbulent Flame speed Closure (TFC) [2] and
G-equations [3] which are commonly used in commercial CFD
software. Due to its significance, ST has been the focus of a large
number of analytical [4]–[7], experimental [8]–[12] and
computational studies [12]–[14], as well as literature reviews
[15]–[17]. One of the main objectives of these studies has been
the development of ST correlations based on laminar flame
properties (laminar flame speed (SL) and thickness (δth)),
turbulent flow properties (integral length scale (Λ) and root mean
squared (rms) turbulent velocity (u’)), and dimensionless
numbers (Reynolds number (Re), Karlovitz Number (Ka) and
Damköhler number (Da)) [4], [6], [18]. Some of these
correlations are based on semi-empirical scaling laws [19], [20]
and others are based on the physics of passive scalars [6].
However while there are approximately 40 different correlations
spanning more than seven decades of research [21], a general
correlation for determining ST, does not exist. This is due to the
complex nature of turbulent flames, and the influence that flame
wrinkling, experimental flame configuration, bending effects
and measurement techniques have on ST. This problem is further
compounded by the fact that no single definition for ST exists.
Due to the complexity of turbulent premixed flames, and the
large number of correlations available in the literature, the
correct choice of correlation to predict ST is not always clear. The
aim of this study is to provide insight into the state-of-the-art ST
correlations and to determine the most appropriate correlations
to use under different turbulent premixed combustion conditions.
 To achieve this, 16 correlations are compared against DEFINITION DEPENDENCY
experimental data and a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) Unlike laminar flame speed, there is no single definition for
value, for four data groupings, is used to assess a single value for turbulent burning velocity [15]. Some researchers define ST to be
accuracy of each of the correlations. All laminar properties are a consumption speed which gives an indicator of the mass
calculated using 1D solvers to ensure they are consistent for each consumed per second and is determined by recognizing that all
flame. Many correlations have adjustable parameters used to the reactants leaving the burner must flow through the flame
scale the expressions for different flame conditions [2], [3], [22], brush. An iso-surface of 𝑐̅ = 0.5 [15] is generally used when
[23]. As well as finding the MAPE for each correlation using the measuring consumption speed [24], [25]. Others express ST as a
original authors’ suggested adjustable parameters, this study displacement speed and determine it by examining the kinematic
proposes new parameter values that minimize the MAPE over balance between the mean flow field and the flame brush
the range of experimental conditions studied. Upon finding the propagating speed at the leading edge of the flame brush. To
most appropriate parameter for each correlation and data experimentally measure displacement speed, an iso-surface of 𝑐̅
grouping, the correlations with the lowest MAPE values are = 0.05 is generally used [4], [26], [27]. From this point forward
further studied to assess their ability to match trends in the ST measured as a displacement speed (𝑐̅ = 0.05) and consumption
experimental data. While exact values of ST are desirable for speed (𝑐̅ = 0.5) shall be referred to as ST,0.05 and ST,0.5 respectively,
model closure, trends are also important, allowing researchers to while ST will be used to refer to turbulent flame speed in general.
determine the influence of varying certain conditions (inlet Flame speeds obtained using these two definitions are not equal.
temperature (T), equivalence ratio (pressure (P) and Reasons for this difference include convergence or divergence of
turbulence levels). Correlations are compared to four data stream lines, within a flame. As a result of these converging or
groupings. Firstly they are compared to methane (CH4) flames diverging stream lines a reactant flux in the transverse direction
over the entire range of experimental test conditions identified is introduced. This leads to different velocities at the 𝑐̅ = 0.05
through extensive literature review (Data Grouping 1), which is and 𝑐̅ = 0.5 iso-surfaces and therefore different measurements of
shown in Table 2. Correlations are then compared, again for CH4, ST [28]. For diverging flows, such as low swirl burner flames, V-
at elevated pressure conditions only (0.2-1.0 MPa) (Data flames and Bunsen flames, it has been found that ST,0.05 / ST,0.5 has
Grouping 2). A third comparison for CH 4 takes place for values of 4, 3 and 1.7, respectively. In contrast, for spherically
conditions identified as elevated-pressure (0.2-1.0 MPa) and expanding flames, ratios of ST,0.05 / ST,0.5 have been found to be
highly turbulent (u’/SL > 10), which are of relevance to industrial 0.45 [11]. Therefore it is important to only compare ST values
combustion systems (Data Grouping 3). Finally, fuel effects are obtained using the same definitions. For this reason Bradley [11]
examined through the comparison of the correlations for ethane derived a relationship, shown in equation (1), to estimate ST at
(C2H6) and propane (C3H8) flames at atmospheric pressure (Data different surfaces for expanding flames. Taking the leading edge
Grouping 4). (𝑐̅ = 0.05) as a reference 𝑐̅ iso-surface, Table 1 shows the
relationship between flame radii and ST at various surfaces. This
The ST correlations selected for this study are each defined method allows for the comparison of measured [29] or modeled
at values of reaction progress variable (𝑐̅) equal to either 0.05 or [9] values of ST at different 𝑐̅ iso-surfaces. The authors are
0.5. Progress variable ranges from 𝑐̅ = 0 (unburnt) to 𝑐̅ = 1 unaware of any such relationship for relating ST at different 𝑐̅ iso-
(burnt). To remove the influence of 𝑐̅, each correlation is surfaces for other apparatuses. Therefore for this study,
compared to experimental ST values measured at applicable 𝑐̅ iso- experimental results are selected because they (1) study
surfaces only. For Bunsen flames this is achieved by comparing expanding flames or (2) report both ST,0.05 and ST,0.5.
measurements of ST under the same conditions at surfaces of 𝑐̅ =
0.05 and 𝑐̅ = 0.5. For spherically-expanding flames, although ST 2
STc2  rc 
was measured at various values of 𝑐̅, the relationship developed  1  (1)
by Bradley [11], which defines the ratio of different surface radii, STc1  rc 
 2 
is used to relate ST back to value at 𝑐̅ = 0.05 and 𝑐̅ = 0.5.
Table 1 Radii and speed ratios for various 𝒄̅ iso-surfaces, taking the
In the following sections the appropriate dependency of ST on leading edge (𝒄̅ = 0.05) as a reference. Reproduced from [11].
the selected 𝑐̅ iso-surface and the expression used by Bradley to
Measurement Technique 𝒄̅ r0.05 / rc2 STc / ST
2 0.05
relate values of ST at different surfaces is discussed. This is
followed by a description of the experimental data examined in OH PLIF 0.05 1.00 1.00
the paper. Then an overview of the correlations employed in the Schlieren 0.1 1.11 1.23
study is discussed and the method used to calculate the error Equal Volume Method 0.34 1.36 1.85
value. Finally the observed results are presented and discussed. Equal Area Method 0.4 1.41 1.99
Mean Flame 0.5 1.49 2.22
Pressure Trace 0.6 1.56 2.42

2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Table 2 Experimental conditions, apparatus and measured 𝒄̅ iso-surfaces for each data set used in the study.
Symbol Data Set Apparatus Fuel 𝒄̅  Tu (K) P (MPa) u'/SL Λ /δth Ref
 A CB CH4 0.1 0.8 300 0.1 10.6-20.8 70.1-70.6 [29]
 B CB CH4 0.1 0.8 300 0.2-1.0 5.0-14.5 3.5-170.1 [29]
 C SB CH4 0.6 0.8-1.2 300 0.1 1.9-16.4 3.9-6.4 [30]
 D BB CH4 0.05 & 0.5 0.7-1.35 300 0.1 2.6-11.7 2.9-5.6 [26]
 E BB C2H6 0.05 & 0.5 0.7-1.45 300 0.1 2.2-8.8 3.8-7.0 [26]
 F BB C3H8 0.05 & 0.5 0.8-1.35 300 0.1 2.4-7.3 4.7-6.9 [26]
 G SB CH4 0.1 0.6-1.3 360 0.5 8.2-45.5 3.7-136.1 [31]
 H SB CH4 0.34 0.6-1.3 360 0.1 2.0-15.1 1.8-4.5 [32]
 I BB CH4 0.05 0.7-1.0 300 0.1 0.65-2.4 2.3-9.4 [33]
 J CB CH4 0.1 0.7-1.4 300 0.1 1.4-34.7 23.4-105 [7]
 K SB CH4 0.1 0.7-1.2 300 0.1 4.4-10.0 35.3-56.8 [9]
 L BB CH4 0.05 & 0.5 0.7-1.0 300 0.1 2.0-15.1 1.8-4.5 [27]
 M SB C3H8 0.6 0.7-1.45 300 0.1 1.9-9.9 5.3-7.0 [34]
 N CV C3H8 0.6 0.8-1.25 300 0.1 1.3-6.3 8.1-10.0 [35]


Table 1 shows how measuring ST at different 𝑐̅ iso-surfaces
results in different values. It can be noted that, for expanding
flames, as 𝑐̅ increases so too does ST. However the opposite is
true for Bunsen flames where an increase in 𝑐̅ results in a lower
values of ST. As well as converging or diverging stream lines
the, standard definition of 𝑐̅, ranging from unburnt (𝑐̅ = 0) to
burnt (𝑐̅ = 1), influences this difference. Using the same
definition Liu [29] suggested the reason for this relationship
between 𝑐̅ and ST, for the Bunsen and expanding flame
geometries, is due to the definition of 𝑐̅ discussed above. For
Bunsen flames, fresh gas is present in the center of the flame,
whereas for expanding flames, burnt gas occupies the center.
Figure 1 shows a 2D example of the relationship between 𝑐̅ and
ST for Bunsen and expanding flames.
(a) Bunsen Flame (b) Expanding Flame
x direction x direction
Figure 1 2D representation of the relationship between 𝒄̅ and ST for
(a) a Bunsen and (b) an expanding flame with iso-surfaces for 0, 0.5
and 1 through the flame brush.
Liu [29] proposed this could explain why ST/SL values from
Bunsen flames are found to be greater than spherical flames
when measured at 𝑐̅ = 0.1 even though, under the same
conditions, both measurements of ST should be close. By
measuring ST at an iso-surface of 𝑐̅ = 0.5, Liu found good
agreement between Bunsen flame and expanding flame data. As
a result, Liu suggested that flame speeds determined at 𝑐̅ = 0.5
may be a better representation of ST and eliminate the effect of
reactor flow configuration. While ST,0.5 may be a better
representation of ST many existing correlations predict ST,0.05 and
therefore both definitions are considered here.
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
To assess the correlations’ applicability in predicting ST, work
from 11 experimental studies and over 200 different flame
conditions are used. An overview of the data can be seen in Table
2 and the modified Borghi plot in Figure 2. The majority of the
data comes from expanding flames (137 points), including
cruciform burners (CB), spherical bombs (SB), cylindrical vessel
(CV); with the remaining flames (66 points) using a Bunsen
burner (BB) setup. These studies are selected as both ST,0.05 and
ST,0.5 are reported or can be calculated from the reported values
using Bradley’s relationship. Laminar properties for CH4 are
calculated using CHEMKIN PRO [36] and a C3 version of
AramcoMech 1.3 [37]. Cantera [38] and a C5 version of
AramcoMech 1.3 [37] are used to calculate the properties of the
larger hydrocarbons. CHEMKIN PRO is not used for C2H6 or
C3H8 due to memory issues caused by the larger kinetic
mechanism (346 species). Cantera is also used to calculate Lewis
numbers (Le), using equation (2) for each of the reactant
mixtures at inlet conditions. A Lewis number was calculated for
each of the flames, with average values of 0.95, 1.4 and 1.70 for
CH4, C2H6 and C3H8, respectively.
k
Le  (2)
 c p Dm

3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 The majority of studies in the literature define flame MODELING CORRELATIONS
thickness as the diffusive flame thickness (δdiff). This can be Accurate prediction of ST is important in two areas of
expressed using thermal diffusion δdiff = /SL [29], [26] and [27] combustion research (1) estimating engine stability and
or viscosity δdiff = /SL [32], [7]. For this study, flame thickness reactivity under varying parameters, and (2) closing the Favre-
is defined as thermal flame thickness (δth) as shown in equation average 𝑐̅ equation used in approaches such as FSD, TFC and G-
(3). equations, which are regularly employed in commercial CFD
codes [40]. Zimont was one of the first to suggest closing the
TB  TU equation by highlighting the importance of mean flame brush
 th  (3) thickness (δt) and ST [16]. Because of this, many studies have
max(dT / dx)
been carried out to develop a general correlation for predicting
ST [10], [19], [41]. A general expression derived from
While these alternative definitions of flame thickness are Damköhler’s [42] physical model of the form:
equally valid, with respect to temperature, pressure and the
diffusive thickness is smaller by up to a factor of ten [39]. For n
ST  u' 
this reason the velocity (u'/SL) and length ratios (Λ /δth) reported  1 C   (7)
here differ from those reported in other work due to the use of SL  SL 
δdiff in the literature and the use of δth in this study. By using the
calculated values of SL and δth for each flame the influence of has been proposed numerous times, where C is a parameter on
varying laminar properties is removed from the study. The non- the order of unity, and n is typically ~ 0.7 [43]. To match ST, C
dimensional numbers Re, Ka and Da are also defined using δth, must be varied depending on using experimentally-obtained
SL and the turbulent flow properties (Λ and u’), with equations data [7]. While a general correlation for predicting ST still
(4)-(6) respectively, and used to plot the modified Borghi remains elusive due to the strong interactions between flame
diagram shown in Figure 2. chemistry, flow properties, and the turbulent and laminar
transport, many correlations have been derived. Lipatnikov [16]
 u'     provides a detailed overview of these existing correlations. A list
ReT      (4)
 S L   th 
of the equations used in this study is shown in Table 5. The first
author, equation and the parameters used for each correlation is
3/ 2 1 / 2
displayed. Also shown is the definition of ST used by each author.
 u'   It should be noted that for the Zimont correlation the definition
Ka=     (5)
  th 
of ST could not be determined. However due to its extensive use
 SL 
and close agreement with ST,0.5 it is assumed the expression
predicts ST at an iso-surface of 𝑐̅ = 0.5. Only a portion of existing
1
 u'     correlations are being examined for this study. Many more
Da=     (6) correlations exist [44]–[46], but are excluded from the current
 S L    th  study due to difficulty in determining the definition of ST used.
As further information becomes available, these correlations will
100 be examined. A recently-derived correlation by Kolla [4] is also
Broken excluded from the study due to the fact that the definition of
Reaction Zone Thin Reaction
Zone ST,0.05 did not relate well to the leading edge measurement for
expanding flames used in this study. While the correlation shows
good agreement to Bunsen flame data, it is not possible to
10
achieve similar agreement with other burner set-ups, as also
demonstrated by [47]. To assess the accuracy of each model, a
u'/SL

Corrugated mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) is calculated using

Flamelet
equation (8), where xexp,i is experimental value i, xcorr ,i is the
1 value predicted by the correlation and n is the size of the data
u’/SL=1
group under examination.
Laminar Wrinkled

xexp,i  xcorr ,i
Flamelet n

0.1 i 1 xexp,i (8)

0.1 1 10 100 1000
MAPE  100
Λ/δth n
Figure 2 Turbulence and flame conditions for the data displayed in
Table 2 plotted on a Borghi diagram modified by Peters [17].

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Table 3 Turbulent premixed flame correlations by various authors and their reported parameters
Correlation & Author Equation Parameters

C1 Zimont [2] ST ,0.5  Cu ' Da0.25 C = 0.52

 u' 0.25 
 1  C  1  Da 2 
ST ,0.05
C2 KPP [48]  C=1
SL  SL 

C3 Klimov [22] ST ,0.05  Cu ' 0.7 SL 0.3 C = 3.5

   0.25
  
D2
 D = 2.32-2.4
  
 C   1  1  At 0.25 ReT0.75  exp    t    At 0.25 ReT0.75  
ST ,0.05 A u'
C4 Gouldin [49]  At = 0.37
SL      ReT  S L    
    
C=1
0.5 C = 6, D1 = 0.5,
 C  k  
0.5
 u ' 
C5 Duclos [51] ST ,0.5  Cu '   1  D1 1  D2 
D2 = 0.6, ScT = 0.7
 T  
Sc  S L  (  k See [51])
0.5
 D2 ReT 0.5  C = 0.7, D1 =
ST ,0.05  Cu' ReT 0.25
 1  D3 
C6 Mantel & Borghi [52] 0.8165, D2 = 1.25
 1  D S L  
     D3 = 1
u' 
1

ST ,0.05  8D when D  27.82

where D = Cu'ReT0.75
C7 Kerstein [53] C = 0.082
D
ST ,0.05  1 when D  27.82
2
0.25
 0.47 u '   u '  
ReT 1  exp  3.178 ReT 0.5    
Abdel-Gayed & Bradley ST ,0.05  SL   SL  
C8 C  C = 1.34
[54] SL 8.13Re 0.22 u ' 1  exp  0.391Re 0.25 u '   
 S L   S L   
T T
  
ST ,0.05 u'
C9 Anand & Pope [55] C C = 1.5
SL SL
0.5
ST ,0.05  u' 
C10 Gülder [20]  1 C   ReT 0.25 C = 0.62
SL  SL 
0.38 0.38
ST ,0.5  u'   P  C  2.9  CH 4 & C2 H 4 
C11 Kobayashi [19]  C   
 0.1 MPa  C  1.9  C3 H 8 
SL  SL 
0.3
 u' 
0.2
ST ,0.5 C  P 
C12 Muppala [18]  1 ReT0.25     C = 0.46
SL Le  SL   0.1 MPa 
ST ,0.5  S L
C13 Ronney [6]  C ( Da)0.5 C = 0.12
u'
0.5
0.78    0.78   u ' 
2
ST ,0.05 
C14 Peters [3]  1     0.78  C = 2.0
SL 2C  th  2C  th  S L th 


C15 Cant [23] ST ,0.05  Cu 'ReT0.25 C = 0.5

ST ,0.5  S L
C16 Liu [29]  CDa 0.47 C = 0.14
u'

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 Values of MAPE are calculated for the four groups of data to predict ST trends for varying equivalence ratio, turbulence
previously mentioned. Where Data Grouping 1 (DG 1) contains intensity and fuel type. To assess the ability of correlations C1,
the entire range of CH4 values, Data Grouping 2 (DG 2) contains C11, C12, C13 and C16, to match ST trends, predicted values are
CH4 measurements at elevated pressure only (0.2-1.0 MPa), Data compared to individual ST data points. The parameters reported
Grouping 3 (DG 3) contains results at elevated pressure (0.2-1.0 in Table 4 are used for each of the trend studies with parameters
MPa) and high turbulence (u’/SL > 10), and Data Grouping 4 (DG from DG 1 used for CH4 and parameters from DG 4 for C3H8.
4) contains values for C2H6 and C3H8 at atmospheric pressure The selected data covers two ranges of turbulence (thin reaction
conditions. An overview of the flames making up each group and zone (Ka > 1) and corrugated flamelet zone (Ka < 1)) and a wide
their symbols from Figure 2 can been seen in Table 3. range of Da (0.3–38), for varying values of  This allows a
study, for each correlation, to be performed over a wide range of
Table 4 Overview of data groups and related symbols from Table 2. turbulent conditions as shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 to Figure 11
* denotes only a portion of the data set is used. show the trends for methane flames with varying values of
turbulent intensity and equivalence ratio. A similar examination
Data
of these correlations is carried out for the trends relating to the
Groups Data Sets Symbols
larger hydrocarbons in this study. These results are shown in
DG 1 A, C, D, G, H, I, J, K, L  Figure 12 to Figure 15 for variation in u’ and for propane.
DG 2 B, G 
Table 5 Adjustable parameters for each correlation, that minimise
DG 3 B*, G* 
MAPE values, for the four data groupings for AramcoMech 1.3 and
DG 4 E, F, M, N  USC. USC values are in brackets.
Adjustable Parameters
Correlation
The three data groupings for methane and one grouping for DG 1 DG 2 DG 3 DG 4
larger hydrocarbons are assessed with individual MAPE values. 0.48 0.37 0.36 0.69
Each correlation is evaluated twice, once using the original Zimont
(0.47) (0.33) (0.32) (0.69)
authors’ adjustable parameter and a second time using C 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.17
parameters derived by the current authors, which minimize KPP
(0.19) (0.22) (0.20) (0.17)
MAPE in each of the four groups. For correlations with more
0.65 0.66 0.66 0.62
than one adjustable parameters, parameters other than C are left Klimov
(0.62) (0.62) (0.66) (0.62)
unchanged. The parameters that result in the minimum MAPE
are presented below in Table 4. The adjustable parameters 0.57 0.46 0.51 0.67
Gouldin
reported by the original authors are shown in Table 5. KPP [48] (0.54) (0.39) (0.42) (0.66)
and Gouldin [49] did not include an adjustable parameter for 2.90 1.40 1.30 10.40
Duclos
their correlations. For this reason parameters are introduced as (2.40) (1.10) (1.00) (10.40)
shown in correlations C2 and C4. To ensure the kinetic 0.28 0.29 0.26 0.36
Mantel & Borghi
mechanism used does not introduce uncertainty into the new (0.27) (0.28) (0.26) (0.36)
parameters, two sets are calculated; one using the laminar 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.05
Kerstein
properties predicted by AramcoMech 1.3 and a second set using (0.007) (0.004) (0.003) (0.05)
those predicted by USC Mech Version II [50]. The new Abdel-Gayed & 0.69 0.66 0.71 0.60
parameters are shown in Table 4, those determined using Bradley (0.64) (0.55) (0.61) (0.59)
AramcoMech 1.3 are on the top line of each row and those 0.32 0.33 0.29 0.40
determined using USC Mech are within brackets. While there is Anand & Pope
(0.32) (0.33) (0.29) (0.40)
a difference in the two sets of parameters, the maximum
0.13 0.11 0.12 0.14
difference is less than 25%, with most of the parameters varying Gülder
(0.12) (0.09) (0.09) (0.13)
by less than 10%. Due to the small difference only a single set of
parameters, the AramcoMech 1.3 set, is considered in the results 2.00 1.70 2.00 1.70
Kobayashi
section of this paper. (1.90) (1.50) (1.80) (1.60)
0.53 0.35 0.38 0.95
Muppala
RESULTS (0.48) (0.29) (0.32) (0.97)
Figure 3 shows the error (MAPE) of each of the correlations 0.26 0.16 0.16 0.38
Ronney
using the parameters given in Table 5 for each of the four data (0.24) (0.13) (0.13) (0.38)
groupings. Figure 4 shows each correlation’s error for the four 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.16
Peters
data groupings when their adjustable C parameters are modified, (0.19) (0.20) (0.20) (0.15)
to the values reported in Table 4, such that MAPE is minimized. 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.14
Based on the results shown in Figure 4, the correlations with the Cant
(0.06) (0.06) (0.05) (0.14)
highest accuracy (defined as a maximum error less than 33% for 0.27 0.17 0.18 0.36
DG 1), are selected for further study to determine their abilities Liu
(0.25) (0.14) (0.14) (0.39)

6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 900 Figure 6 and Figure 7 examine the ability of each correlation
DG 1 DG 2 DG 3 DG 4 to predict ST under a variety of turbulent conditions for a fixed
800
equivalence ratio (constant). For the lean mixtures (0.7)
700 the data set mainly sits in the thin reaction zone, while for u’/SL
≈ 2.9 the flame is located in the corrugated flamelet zone. For
600
stoichiometric mixtures (1.0), where u’/SL < 8.5, the data set
MAPE (%)

500 resides in the corrugated flamelets zone while for u’/SL > 8.5 the
data set can be modelled as a thin reaction zone. Figure 8 and
400
Figure 9 assess the correlations’ ability to predict ST trends under
300 a variety of equivalence ratios for fixed turbulence (u’ =
constant). For u’ = 0.47 m/s the data set sits completely within
200
the thin reaction zone and for u’ = 1.89 m/s the data set is within
100 the corrugated flamelet zone. Figure 10 and Figure 11 examine
trend predictions where stretch effects have less of an influence
0
when compared to the previous data sets. Similar approaches are
C12

C16
C13
C11

C10
C14

C15
C2
C1

C5
C4
C8
C6
C7

C9
C3
taken for propane in Figure 11 to Figure 15. The data sets
displayed in these graphs both sit in the thin reaction zone and
Figure 3 Accuracy of the test correlations determined through the
use of MAPE for reported parameters
are used to assess each correlations ability to predict trends for
 and u’ for higher hydrocarbons.
70
DG 1 DG 2 DG 3 DG 4
60 20.0
17.5
50 Zimont (C1) Ronney (C13)
15.0
MAPE (%)

40 12.5
Corrugated Flamelets
ST/SL

10.0
30 Liu (C16) Muppala (C12)
7.5
20 5.0
Kobayashi (C11)
2.5 Thin Reaction Zone
10
0.0
0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
u'/SL
C12
C16
C11
C13

C14

C10
C15
C3
C1
C2

C8
C5

C4
C6
C9
C7

Figure 6 Predicted trends for Flame J (CH4 with T = 300 K, P = 0.1

Figure 4 Accuracy of the test correlations determined through the MPa) with  = 0.7 using correlation parameter to minimize MAPE
use of MAPE for Minimum MAPE parameters from Table 5 for DG 1

100 20.0
Broken J; ER = 0.7
Reaction Zone J; ER = 1.0 17.5 Thin Reaction Zone Corrugated Flamelets
J; u' = 0.47
J; u' = 4.6 15.0
D; u' = 0.89
Thin Reaction D; u' = 1.89 12.5
ST/SL

Zone N; ER = 0.8
N; ER = 1.0 10.0
u'/SL

10 F; u ' = 1.89
7.5
5.0
2.5
Corrugated
Flamelet 0.0
1.0 6.0 11.0 16.0
1 u'/SL
1 10 100 1000 Figure 7 Predicted trends for Flame J (CH4 with T = 300 K, P = 0.1
Λ/δth MPa) with  = 1.0 using correlation parameter to minimize MAPE
Figure 5 Turbulence and flame conditions for the data displayed in for DG 1
Table 3 plotted on a Borghi diagram modified by Peters [17].

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 4.5 4.5
4.0 4.0
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
ST (m/s)

ST (m/s)
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3
 
Figure 8 Predicted trends for Flame J (CH4 with T = 300 K, P = 0.1 Figure 9 Predicted trends for Flame J (CH4 with T = 300 K, P = 0.1
MPa) with u’ = 0.47 using correlation parameter to minimize MAPE MPa) with u’ = 4.6 using correlation parameter to minimize MAPE
for DG 1 for DG 1

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0
ST (m/s)

ST (m/s)
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3
 
Figure 10 Predicted trends for Flame D (CH4 with T = 300 K, P = Figure 11 Predicted trends for Flame D (CH4 with T = 300 K, P =
0.1 MPa) with u’ = 0.91 using correlation parameter to minimize 0.1 MPa) with u’ = 1.89 using correlation parameter to minimize
MAPE for DG 1 MAPE for DG 1

6.0 6.0

5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0
ST/SL

ST/SL

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
u'/SL u'/SL
Figure 12 Predicted trends for Flame N (C3H8 with T = 300 K, P = Figure 13 Predicted trends for Flame N (C3H8 with T = 300 K, P =
0.1 MPa) with  = 0.8 using correlation parameter to minimize 0.1 MPa) with  = 1.0 using correlation parameter to minimize
MAPE for DG 4 MAPE for DG 4

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 1.5
1.3
1.1
ST (m/s)
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
 
Figure 14 Predicted for Flame F (C3H8 with T = 300 K, P = 0.1 MPa)
with u’ = 0.91 using correlation parameter to minimize MAPE for
DG 4
DISCUSSION
The aim of the study is to assess the accuracy (MAPE) of a
number of correlations for ST using a large volume of data over
a range of conditions. With many of the correlations containing
adjustable parameters, each correlation is assessed twice; once
using the original authors’ adjustable parameters, and a second
time using C parameters that minimize MAPE. Closer
examination is then taken for the most accurate correlations, to
assess their ability to predict experimental trends. It should be
noted that for Figure 3, where the original authors’ parameters
are used, there are significant errors for some correlations. This
is because (1) the correlations are being employed over ranges
of conditions for which they are not previously calibrated, and
(2) the underlying theories on which the correlations are based
on are not applicable for the entire range of data used in the study.
Figure 4 shows widespread improvements in accuracy through
the use of newly-suggested correlation parameters that have been
defined over a broader range of data. It should be noted that these
newly-suggested adjustable parameters are based on δth rather
than δdiff.
It is well known that ST increases significantly with an
increase in u’. However at large values of turbulent intensities,
the variation of ST in relation to u’ becomes nonlinear and in
some cases may even decrease. An example of this can be seen
in Figure 6 when u’/SL < 11, similar trends have been observed
in [51]. This phenomenon is known as “bending” and is possibly
caused by flamelets merging due to the inability of the flame
surface area to grow due to the increased turbulence within the
flame [56]. Many correlations, C3, C6, C8, C9, and C15 do not
exhibit this trend and so tend to over-predict ST in moderate to
intense turbulence (u’/SL < 10), therefore leading to higher error.
Other correlations, C10 and C11, are curve-fitted to a large array
of experimental data. The quality of the data used during the
fitting process is therefore important. A large portion of the data
used to derive C10 did not consider flame stretch therefore
affecting its accuracy [57]. Correlations such as C13 and C16 are
9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
1.5
1.3
1.1
ST (m/s)
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Figure 15 Predicted trends for Flame F (C3H8 with T = 300 K, P =
0.1 MPa) with u’ = 1.89 using correlation parameter to minimize
MAPE for DG 4
based on the distributed reaction zone (DRZ), first defined by
Damköhler who argued that a flame may be distributed by a rapid
increase in temperature over a large region of reactants that are
above the ignition temperature, but that ST is primarily influenced
by increasing diffusive transport inside the flame with no
influence on the reaction rate. The DRZ model is applicable
when 1.2 < Da < 6.0 (assuming that δth = 0.1δdiff [39]) and under-
predicts ST at higher values of Da [7]. While a large portion of
the data sets examined lie within this distributed reaction zone,
not all do. Therefore outside the DRZ, the underlying theory no
longer holds true and these correlations become less applicable,
resulting in higher MAPEs. Similar trends are seen for other
models, C1 and C7, where they are accurate for a certain range
of turbulent conditions only. C1 is based on intermediate steady
propagation (ISP) flames which is defined at ReT >> 1 and Da
>> 1. C7 follows a similar trend and is only applicable when δth
>> Λ and u’/SL > 1. C12 has been shown to be the most accurate
correlation using both the original authors’ adjustable parameter
and those proposed by the current authors. This is due to the fact
that the C12 correlation is based on C1, with the addition of three
terms (an additional velocity ratio (u'/SL), pressure term (P/P0)
and Le) that depend on a range of conditions (pressure, fuel,
chemistry) and result in the correlation being applicable at both
low and high levels of turbulence [18].
Figure 6 to Figure 9 shows ST trends for CH4 flames with Da
> 10 and ReT > 100. In Figure 6, for < 1.0 the trend is well
captured by C12, C13 and C16 over the entire range of u’. C11
also captures the trends well, however under-predicts ST for u’/SL
< 2.9. C1 captures the linear trend for the data set. At high u’/SL
however, it does not exhibit the turn-down effect shown by the
other correlations. For stoichiometric conditions in Figure 7 and
Figure 8, all the correlations under-predict peak values due to
very high values of Da caused by high SL. For the data sets in this
region, C13 and C16 are the closest to matching the trend and
result in the lowest MAPE as they are able to predict the
influence of stretch on the flame. C1 and C12 lack stretch terms
and so under-estimate ST. The C1 correlation shows satisfactory
agreement with the linear rise in the data sets in Figure 6 and
Figure 7, however underestimates ST at higher values of u’/SL
when bending occurs. C11, C12, C13 and C16 exhibit the turn-
down effect caused by bending in these data sets. At lower values
of Da, due to higher u’/SL, C13 and C16 show good agreement
between the trends and values shown in Figure 9.
Figure 10 and Figure 11 show ST trends for CH4 flames with
Da < 10 and ReT < 100. In this region, where stretch effects have
a smaller influence, the C11 correlation results in the lowest
MAPE and shows good agreement with trends. Figure 10 shows
satisfactory trend prediction by C11, however ST is under-
predicted. C13 and C16 match the trends but significantly under-
predict the values due to small values of Da. C1 also under
predicts ST and again shows a insensitivity to  At even lower
Da, similar trends are seen in Figure 11.
ST trends for C3H8, at fixed equivalence ratio (constant)
are shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13. The adjustable parameter
for CH4 scales the values of ST equally and has no effect on the
slope of the trends. However for C3H8, the adjustable parameter
not only effects the magnitude of ST but also the slope of the lines
predicted by each correlation. Using a larger adjustable
parameter, for flames shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13, results
in a steeper slope and the trend moving closer to the experimental
results. However by increasing the adjustable parameter the
overall MAPE also increases. For Figure 14 and Figure 15 two
issues can be seen: (1) the peak is not located at the correct value
of  but rather at a value where SL would peak, similar results
have been found by [47]; (2) the correlations show a large
insensitivity to . This is most likely due to the effects of
preferential diffusion caused by the non-unity Lewis number of
the fuel.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this study is to provide insight into the state-of-
the-art ST correlations and to determine the most appropriate
correlations to use under different turbulent premixed
combustion conditions. This is achieved by assessing the
accuracy of 16 correlations for over 200 sets of laboratory flame
data for a variety of turbulent conditions, pressures and fuel types
through the use of a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE).
The approach is used for different sets of adjustable parameters
for different data groupings. Based on the results from this
analysis, the most accurate correlations are selected to assess
their ability to predict trends under varying conditions.
Overall it is initially found that the errors can be high for
parameters reported by the correlation’s original authors. This is
due to the fact that these parameters were originally derived for
a smaller data set than is used in this study. While the errors can
be minimized through the use of alternative parameters, they
cannot be eliminated. This is due to the fact that each correlation
is based on a model that describes a single regime of turbulence.
This means that each correlation is only applicable to certain
turbulent and inlet conditions. Outside of these conditions the
10
theories on which certain correlations are based may no longer
be valid. As a result, when the smaller C parameter values, based
on thermal thickness, are used the error for each of the
correlations is greatly reduced. It was found that the most
applicable correlation was the correlation suggested by Muppala
which has low values of MAPE for all the conditions tested. The
models by Ronney, Zimont, Kobayashi and Liu also showed
good agreement with data. For this reason they are selected to
examine their ability to predict trends.
For CH4 flames, the study found that for higher turbulence,
Da > 10 and ReT > 100, the DRZ models of Ronney and Liu are
more applicable, giving the lowest MAPE and matching the
trend the best. However for lower turbulence, Da < 10 and ReT
< 100, the Muppala model is more applicable, showing better
agreement with the trend and a lower MAPE. While predictions
by Zimont also gave low values of MAPE, the trends did not
match as well as the previous correlations. The opposite is found
with the Kobayashi model, where the correlation is applicable
for trends but not for predicting exact values. For larger
hydrocarbon fuels it is found that again the models by Muppala,
Ronney, Zimont, Kobayashi and Liu had the smallest errors,
however they could not fully predict trends, as preferential
diffusion played a part or the trends are dependent on the
selection of the adjustable parameter.
While it is commonly accepted that no single correlation is
applicable over the complete range of turbulence encountered in
turbulent premixed combustion, it is found that the correlation
proposed by Muppala provides the closest overall agreement to
the range of data examined. However while proving to be the
most applicable correlation for the data studied, it cannot be
defined as a general correlation. For larger hydrocarbons this is
particularly evident. Although correlations are needed for
closing of Favre-average 𝑐̅ equation, the authors believe an
alternative approach for estimating combustor reactivity through
the use of ST is needed. For this reason the authors have proposed
a modified version of the Cantera freely propagating laminar
flame code, capable of solving ST [58]. While still under
development, modifications have been made to the SL solver to
account for the following impacts of turbulence: (1)
enhancement of property transport due to turbulent diffusion, (2)
enhancement of effective reaction rate due to temperature
fluctuations, and (3) reduction of available reaction volume
using the eddy dissipation concept. To ensure the solver is
capable of preforming over a range of fuel types, turbulent
conditions and inlet pressures and temperatures, further
experimental campaigns by the ST research community are
needed. In particular, detailed studies at engine relevant
conditions, elevated pressure and for larger hydrocarbons, are
needed. The authors also believe it would be highly beneficial
for the community to work towards characterizing ST in as
general a framework as possible. The goal of this is to better
enable the direct comparison and analysis of ST data from the
multitude of experimental setups currently used. It would also
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
facilitate the development of generally-applicable ST calculation
tools.
REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Irish Research Council (IRC)
and Alstom Power Ltd for co-funding this work with an [1] D. Veynante and L. Vervisch, “Turbulent combustion
Enterprise Partnership Scheme Postgraduate Fellowship Award modeling,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., vol. 28, no. 3,
(EPSPG/2012/380). pp. 193–266, 2002.
[2] V. L. Zimont, “Gas premixed combustion at high
NOMENCLATURE turbulence. Turbulent flame closure combustion model,”
At Adjustable Parameter Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., vol. 21, no. 1–3, pp. 179–186,
BB Bunsen Burner 2000.
C, C1, C2, C3 Adjustable Parameters [3] N. Peters, “The turbulent burning velocity for large-scale
CB Cruciform Burner and small-scale turbulence,” J. Fluid Mech., vol. 384,
CV Cylindrical Vessel pp. 107–132, 1999.
D Fractal Dimension [4] H. Kolla, J. W. Rogerson, N. Chakraborty, and N.
Dm Mass Diffusion Swaminathan, “Scalar Dissipation Rate Modeling and its
Da Damköhler Number Validation,” Combust. Sci. Technol., vol. 181, no. 3, pp.
DG Data Grouping 518–535, 2009.
FSD Flame Surface Density [5] A. R. Kerstein, “Pair-exchange model of turbulent
Ka Karlovitz Number premixed flame propagation,” pp. 1281–1289, 1986.
Le Lewis Number [6] P. D. Ronney, “Some Open Issues in Premixed Turbulent
MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error Combustion,” Model. Combust. Sci. Lect. Notes Phys.,
P Pressure vol. 449, 1995.
ReT Turbulent Reynolds Number [7] S. S. Shy, W. J. Lin, and J. C. Wei, “An experimental
SB Spherical Bomb correlation of turbulent burning velocities for premixed
SL Laminar Flame Speed turbulent methane-air combustion,” Proc. R. Soc. A
ST Turbulent Flame Speed Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., vol. 456, no. 2000, pp. 1997–
T Temperature 2019, 2000.
TFC Turbulent Flame speed Closure [8] H. Kobayashi, T. Tamura, K. Maruta, T. Niioka, and F. a.
𝑐̅ Reaction Progress Variable Williams, “Burning velocity of turbulent premixed
cp Specific Heat Capacity flames in a high-pressure environment,” Symp.
k Thermal Conductivity Combust., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 389–396, 1996.
r Radius [9] S. Ravi, A. Morones, and E. Petersen, “Evaluation of
rms Root Mean Square Numerical Turbulent Combustion Models Using Flame
u' Turbulent Velocity Speed Measurements from a Recently Developed Fan-
Greek Symbols Stirred Explosion Vessel,” 8 th U. S. Natl. Combust.
k Meet., 2013.
ITNFS Model Correction Function
[10] R. G. Abdel-Gayed, D. Bradley, and M. Lawes,
 Equivalence Ratio “Turbulent Burning Velocities: A General Correlation in
δdiff Laminar Diffusive Flame Thickness Terms of Straining Rates,” Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys.
δth Laminar Thermal Flame Thickness Eng. Sci., vol. 414, no. 1847, pp. 389–413, Dec. 1987.
Λ Integral Length Scale [11] D. Bradley, M. Lawes, and M. S. Mansour, “Correlation
𝛼 Thermal Diffusion of turbulent burning velocities of ethanol–air, measured
𝛾 Viscosity in a fan-stirred bomb up to 1.2MPa,” Combust. Flame,
 Density vol. 158, no. 1, pp. 123–138, 2011.
Subscripts [12] P. Venkateswaran Prabhakar, A. Marshall, D. H. Shin, D.
0 Reference Value Noble, J. Seitzman, and T. Lieuwen, “Measurements and
0.05 Relating to a surface of 𝑐̅ = 0.05 analysis of turbulent consumption speeds of H2/CO
0.5 Relating to a surface of 𝑐̅ = 0.5 mixtures,” Combust. Flame, vol. 158, no. 8, pp. 1602–
B Burnt 1614, 2011.
L Laminar [13] P. Siewert, P. Griebel, and P. Jansohn, “Influence of
T Turbulent pressure on flame front corrugation and turbulent flame
U Unburnt speed: fractal analysis of lean premixed methane/air
flames,” Third Eur. Combust. Meet., pp. 1–6, 2007.

11 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

[14] S. P. R. Muppala, “A Comparative study of the different
reaction models for turbulent methane/hydrogen/air,” J.
Therm. Eng., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 367–380, 2015.
[15] J. F. Driscoll, “Turbulent premixed combustion:
Flamelet structure and its effect on turbulent burning
velocities,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., vol. 34, no. 1,
pp. 91–134, 2008.
[16] Lipatnikov N. and J. Chomiak, “Turbulent flame speed
and thickness: Phenomenology, evaluation, and
application in multi-dimensional simulations,” Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci., vol. 28, pp. 1–74, 2002.
[17] N. Peters, Turbulent combustion. Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
[18] S. P. R. Muppala, N. K. Aluri, F. Dinkelacker, and A.
Leipertz, “Development of an algebraic reaction rate
closure for the numerical calculation of turbulent
premixed methane, ethylene, and propane/air flames for
pressures up to 1.0 MPa,” Combust. Flame, vol. 140, no.
4, pp. 257–266, 2005.
[19] H. Kobayashi, “Experimental study of high-pressure
turbulent premixed flames,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., vol.
26, no. 2–4, pp. 375–387, 2002.
[20] Ö. L. Gülder, “Turbulent premixed flame propagation
models for different combustion regimes,” Symp.
Combust., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 743–750, 1991.
[21] E. Dahoe, T. Skjold, D. J. E. M. Roekaerts, H. J. Pasman,
R. K. Eckhoff, K. Hanjalic, and M. Donze, “On the
application of the levenberg-marquardt method in
conjunction with an explicit runge-kutta and an implicit
rosenbrock method to assess burning velocities from
confined deflagrations,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., vol.
91, no. 2, pp. 281–317, 2013.
[22] A. M. Klimov, “Premixed turbulent flames-interplay of
hydrodynamic and chemical phenomena,” Flames,
lasers, React. Syst., vol. 1, pp. 133–146, 1983.
[23] R. S. Cant, S. B. Pope, and K. N. C. Bray, “Modelling of
flamelet surface-to-volume ratio in turbulent premixed
combustion,” Symposium (International) on
Combustion, vol. 23, no. 1. pp. 809–815, 1991.
[24] A. Bagdanavicius, P. J. Bowen, N. Syred, P. Kay, A.
Crayford, G. Sims, and J. Wood, “Burning Velocities of
Alternative Gaseous Fuels at Elevated Temperature and
Pressure,” AIAA J., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 317–329, 2010.
[25] A. Y. Poludnenko and E. S. Oran, “The interaction of
high-speed turbulence with flames: Global properties
and internal flame structure,” Combust. Flame, vol. 157,
no. 5, pp. 995–1011, May 2010.
[26] P. Tamadonfar and Ö. L. Gülder, “Effects of mixture
composition and turbulence intensity on flame front
structure and burning velocities of premixed turbulent
hydrocarbon/air Bunsen flames,” Combust. Flame, vol.
162, no. 12, pp. 4417–4441, 2015.
[27] P. Tamadonfar and Ö. L. Gülder, “Flame brush
characteristics and burning velocities of premixed
turbulent methane/air Bunsen flames,” Combust. Flame,
vol. 161, no. 12, pp. 3154–3165, 2014.
12
[28] H. Kolla, J. W. Rogerson, and N. Swaminathan,
“Validation of a Turbulent Flame Speed Model across
Combustion Regimes,” Combust. Sci. Technol., vol. 182,
no. 3, pp. 284–308, 2010.
[29] C. C. Liu, S. S. Shy, M. W. Peng, C. W. Chiu, and Y. C.
Dong, “High-pressure burning velocities measurements
for centrally-ignited premixed methane/air flames
interacting with intense near-isotropic turbulence at
constant Reynolds numbers,” Combust. Flame, vol. 159,
no. 8, pp. 2608–2619, 2012.
[30] M. Nakahara and H. Kido, “Study on the Turbulent
Burning Velocity of Hydrogen Mixtures Including
Hydrocarbons,” AIAA J., vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 1569–1575,
2008.
[31] C. Mandilas, M. P. Ormsby, C. G. W. Sheppard, and R.
Woolley, “Effects of hydrogen addition on laminar and
turbulent premixed methane and iso-octane-air flames,”
Proc. Combust. Inst., vol. 31 I, pp. 1443–1450, 2007.
[32] M. Fairweather, M. P. Ormsby, C. G. W. Sheppard, and
R. Woolley, “Turbulent burning rates of methane and
methane-hydrogen mixtures,” Combust. Flame, vol.
156, no. 4, pp. 780–790, 2009.
[33] G. Smallwood, “Characterization of flame front surfaces
in turbulent premixed methane/Air combustion,”
Combust. Flame, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 461–470, 1995.
[34] M. Nakahara, H. Kido, and K. Nakashima, “A Study on
the Local Flame Displacement Velocity of Premixed
Turbulent Flames,” JSME Int. J. Ser. B, vol. 48, no. 1,
pp. 164–171, 2005.
[35] T. Brutscher, N. Zarzalis, and H. Bockhorn, “An
experimentally based approach for the space-averaged
laminar burning velocity used for modeling premixed
turbulent combustion,” Proc. Combust. Inst., vol. 29, no.
2, pp. 1825–1832, 2002.
[36] Reaction Design, “CHEMKIN-PRO,” : San Diego, CA.
Reaction Design, San Diego, CA.
[37] W. K. Metcalfe, S. M. Burke, S. S. Ahmed, and H. J.
Curran, “A Hierarchical and Comparative Kinetic
Modeling Study of C1 − C2 Hydrocarbon and
Oxygenated Fuels,” Int. J. Chem. Kinet., vol. 45, no. 10,
pp. 638–675, 2013.
[38] David G. Goodwin and Harry K. Moffat and Raymond
L. Speth, “Cantera: An Object-oriented Software Toolkit
for Chemical Kinetics, Thermodynamics, and Transport
Processes.” 2014.
[39] N. Peters, “Length scales in laminar and turbulent
flames,” Numer. Approaches to Combust. Model., vol.
135, pp. 155–182, 1991.
[40] ANSYS FLUENT, Release 12.0, Help System, User ’ s
Guide, ANSYS Inc, no. April. 2009.
[41] S. Daniele and P. Jansohn, “Correlations for Turbulent
Flame Speed of Different Syngas Mixtures At High
Pressure and Temperature,” Proc. ASME Turbo Expo
2012, pp. 1–7, 2012.
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
 Donbar, “Measured properties of turbulent premixed
[42] G. Damköhler, “The Effect of Turbulence on the Flame flames for model assessment, including burning
Velocity in Gas Mixtures,” Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie velocities, stretch rates, and surface densities,” Combust.
und Angew. Phys. Chemie, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 601–626, Flame, vol. 141, no. 1–2, pp. 1–21, 2005.
1940. [57] J. Vancoillie, G. Sharpe, M. Lawes, and S. Verhelst, “The
[43] G. Williams, Combustion theory, 2nd Editio. Menlo turbulent burning velocity of methanol–air mixtures,”
Park: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Fuel, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 76–91, 2014.
1985. [58] E. M. Burke, A. Singlitico, A. Morones, E. L. Petersen,
[44] H. G. Weller, S. Uslu, D. Gosman, R. R. Maly, R. F. Güthe, L. Speth, and R. F. D. Monaghan, “Progress
Herweg, and B. Heel, “Prediction of Combustion in Towards a Validated Cantera-based Turbulent Flame
Homogeneous-Charge Spark-Ignition Engines,” Speed Solver,” Seventh Eur. Combust. Meet., pp. 1–6,
International Symposium COMODIA 94. pp. 163–169, 2015.
1994.
[45] H.-P. Schmid, P. Habisreuther, and W. Leuckel, “A
Model for Calculating Heat Release in Premixed
Turbulent Flames,” Combust. Flame, vol. 113, no. 1–2,
pp. 79–91, Apr. 1998.
[46] P. Clavin and F. a. Williams, “Effects of molecular
diffusion and of thermal expansion on the structure and
dynamics of premixed flames in turbulent flows of large
scale and low intensity,” J. Fluid Mech., vol. 116, pp.
251–282, 1982.
[47] M. Lawes, M. P. Ormsby, C. G. W. Sheppard, and R.
Woolley, “The turbulent burning velocity of iso-
octane/air mixtures,” Combust. Flame, vol. 159, no. 5,
pp. 1949–1959, May 2012.
[48] I. A. Zeldovich, G. I. Barenblatt, V. B. Librovich, and G.
M. Makhviladze, Mathematical theory of combustion
and explosions. Consultants Bureau, New York, NY,
1985.
[49] F. C. Gouldin, “An application of fractals to modeling
premixed turbulent flames,” Combustion and Flame,
vol. 68, no. 3. pp. 249–266, 1987.
[50] Hai Wang, X. You, A. V. Joshi, S. G. Davis, A. Laskin,
and F. E. C. K. Law, “USC Mech Version II. High-
Temperature Combustion Reaction Model of
H2/CO/C1-C4 Compounds.” 2007.
[51] J. M. Duclos, D. Veynante, and T. Poinsot, “A
comparison of flamelet models for premixed turbulent
combustion,” Combust. Flame, vol. 95, no. 1–2, pp.
101–117, 1993.
[52] T. Mantel and R. Borghi, “A new model of premixed
wrinkled flame propagation based on a scalar dissipation
equation,” Combust. Flame, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 443–457,
1994.
[53] A. R. Kerstein, “Pair-exchange model of turbulent
premixed flame propagation,” Symp. Combust., vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 1281–1289, 1988.
[54] R. G. Abdel-Gayed and D. Bradley, “A two-eddy theory
of premixed turbulent flame propagation,” Philos. Trans.
R. Soc. London. Ser. A, Math. Phys. Sci., vol. 301, no.
1457, pp. 1–25, 1981.
[55] M. S. Anand and S. B. Pope, “Calculations of premixed
turbulent flames by PDF methods,” Combustion and
Flame, vol. 67, no. 2. pp. 127–142, 1987.
[56] S. A. Filatyev, J. F. Driscoll, C. D. Carter, and J. M.

13 Copyright © 2016 by ASME