Modeling of Complex Premixed Burner Systems by Using

Flamelet-Generated Manifolds
J. A. VAN OIJEN,* F. A. LAMMERS, and L. P. H. DE GOEY
Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, P.O. Box 513, 600 MB Eindhoven,
The Netherlands

The numerical modeling of realistic burner systems puts a very high demand on computational resources. The
computational cost of combustion simulations can be reduced by techniques that simplify the chemical kinetics.
In this paper, the recently introduced flamelet-generated manifold method for premixed combustion systems is
applied to laminar flames. In this method, the reduced mechanism is created by using solutions of
one-dimensional flamelet equations as steady-state relations. For a methane/air mixture a manifold is
constructed with two controlling variables: one progress variable and the enthalpy to account for energy losses.
This manifold is used for the computation of a two-dimensional burner-stabilized flame and the results are
compared with results of detailed computations. The results show that these two controlling variables are
sufficient to reproduce the results of detailed computations. The influence of flame stretch on the accuracy of
the method is investigated by simulating strained flames in stagnation-point flows. The computation time can
be reduced by a factor of 20 when a flamelet-generated manifold is applied.
The reduction in computation time enables us to perform simulations of combustion in more complex
combustion systems. To show that the method can be used to give accurate predictions, a semi-practical furnace
is modeled and the results are compared with temperature measurements. The experimental setup consists of
a cylindrical radiating furnace with a ceramic-foam surface burner in the top disc. Radial profiles of
temperature have been measured at two different heights in the furnace. The measurements agree quite well
with the results of the numerical simulation using a flamelet-generated manifold. © 2001 by The Combustion
Institute

INTRODUCTION chemical processes with a much smaller time

Due to the still increasing power of modern
supercomputers, detailed numerical simulations
of flames have become within reach. Numerical
studies of two-dimensional (2D) unsteady
flames have been reported by several authors
during the last several years (e.g., [1–3]). Al-
though most of the simulations in these studies
have been performed by using highly optimized
codes and consider only academic problems
with simple geometries, the computation time
prohibits extensive parameter studies. The mod-
eling of more realistic burner systems puts an even
higher demand on computational resources be-
cause radiation and three-dimensional unsteady
phenomena may play an important role.
In order to reduce the computational cost,
several methods have been developed during
the last decade, which simplify the description
of the chemical kinetics. Most of these reduc-
tion methods are based on the observation that
a typical combustion system contains many
* Corresponding author. E-mail: j.a.v.oijen@tue.nl
0010-2180/01/$–see front matter
PII 0010-2180(01)00316-9
scale than the flow time scales. These fast
chemical processes may be decoupled and as-
sumed to be in steady state. The most promi-
nent reduction techniques based on these as-
sumptions are the systematic reduction
technique [4], the intrinsic low-dimensional
manifold (ILDM) approach [5], and the com-
putational singular perturbation method [6].
Recently, the so-called flamelet-generated
manifold (FGM) method has been introduced
[7], which is not only based on “chemical”
assumptions, but also takes the most important
transport processes into account. It shares the
idea with the so-called flamelet approaches [8,
9] that a more-dimensional flame can be con-
sidered as an ensemble of one-dimensional
(1D) flames. In the FGM method a manifold is
constructed by using 1D laminar flamelets,
which can be used in subsequent flame simula-
tions. A similar reduction technique called
flame prolongation of ILDM (FPI) has been
introduced by Gicquel et al. [10].
In this paper, the FGM method will be ap-
plied to the modeling of a ceramic-foam surface
COMBUSTION AND FLAME 127:2124 –2134 (2001)
© 2001 by The Combustion Institute
Published by Elsevier Science Inc.
MODELING OF PREMIXED SYSTEMS WITH FGM
burner in a radiating furnace. Surface burners
are of particular interest because they have a
very low NOx emission due to the cooling of the
gases before they burn [11]. Bouma et al. [12]
studied the stability, performance and radiative
output of ceramic-foam surface burners in a
cold environment. The performance and stabil-
ity of ceramic-foam burners in high-tempera-
ture systems, where the risk of flashback is
enlarged, has been investigated by Lammers et
al. [13]. The main goal of this paper is not to
study the behavior of this semi-practical burner
system, but to show that efficient and accurate
numerical simulations of such a system can be
performed by using the FGM method.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In the
next section, the basic idea behind the FGM
method is explained. Starting from the three-
dimensional (3D) unsteady conservation equa-
tions, a set of flamelet equations is derived and
it is shown how a manifold can be constructed
by using solutions of these flamelet equations.
The application of the method to premixed
laminar methane/air flames is described in the
following section. A manifold will be generated
and applied to a 2D Bunsen-type flame. In
order to validate the FGM method the results
will be compared with results of detailed com-
putations. The influence of flame stretch on the
accuracy of the method is investigated. In the
subsequent section, the method will be applied
to a ceramic-foam surface burner in a radiating
furnace and the results will be compared with
thermocouple measurements. Some conclusions
are drawn in the final section.
FLAMELET-GENERATED MANIFOLDS
In this section, we outline the FGM method; for
more details, the reader is referred to [7].
Premixed laminar flames are governed by the
Navier–Stokes equations, the energy equation,
and conservation equations for the species mass
fractions, Yi:
⭸
⭸t
共␳Yi兲 ⫹ ⵜ 䡠 共␳vY i兲 ⫺ ⵜ 䡠冉 ␭
c pLei
冊
ⵜY i ⫽ (1)
ẇ i⫹ ⫺ ẇ i⫺, i ⫽ 1, . . . , N,
with ␳ the mass density, v the flow velocity, ␭ the
thermal conductivity, and cp the specific heat.
2125
The diffusive transport of the species is de-
scribed by a Fick-like approximation, where the
Lewis numbers— defined as Lei ⫽ ␭/␳Di cp with
Di the diffusion coefficient of species i—are
assumed to be constant [14]. The chemical
source term has been divided in a production
part ẇ i⫹ and a consumption part ẇ i⫺.
To reduce the computational cost, a large
number of partial differential equations is
replaced by algebraic ones in reduction meth-
ods. This, effectively, restricts the chemical
state to a low-dimensional manifold of the
composition space. Most reduction methods
are based on the assumption that a large
number of species (or linear combinations of
them) is in steady state. This means that the
left-hand side of Eq. (1) can be neglected,
leaving a balance between chemical produc-
tion and consumption:
ẇ i⫹ ⫺ ẇ i⫺ ⫽ 0, i ⫽ 1, . . . , M, (2)
assuming the first M species to be in steady
state. In high-temperature regions of a flame
the chemical processes are dominant and,
therefore, the steady-state relations give ac-
curate results. In cold regions the influence of
chemical reactions is negligible and, there-
fore, accurate modeling of the chemistry is
not needed; bad manifold data will probably
not hurt. However, there is a large region in
between where chemical reactions might be
balanced by convection and/or diffusion pro-
cesses. If accurate results are wanted in this
region, only a small number of steady-state
relations can be applied. This diminishes the
efficiency of the reduction methods based on
such steady-state relations.
A better approximation of the mixture com-
position in the convection-diffusion-reaction re-
gion of a premixed flame can be found if the
most important transport processes are also
taken into account. Consider a curve x(s)
through a premixed flame, locally perpendicular
to isosurfaces of a certain species mass fraction
Yj, and parametrized by the arc length s. The
evolution of each species mass fraction Yi along
this curve may be described approximately by a
1D equivalent of Eq. (1):
2126
m
⭸Yi ⭸
⭸s
⫺ 冉␭ ⭸Y i
⭸s cp Lei ⭸s
冊
⫽ ẇ i⫹ ⫺ ẇ i⫺ ⫹ P i共s, t兲,
(3)
with m taken to be a constant mass flow rate.
Transient and multi-dimensional effects, e.g.,
flame stretch and curvature, are gathered in the
perturbation term, Pi(s, t). Because the curve is
perpendicular to the isosurfaces of Yj, the main
part of diffusive transport is represented by the
second term in the left-hand side of Eq. (3). It is
expected that in most situations in premixed
laminar flames Pi is small compared to the other
terms in Eq. (3), although this might not be
justified under extreme circumstances, such as
near local flame quenching. The perturbation Pi
can be neglected if the curvature radius of the
flame front is much larger than the flame thick-
ness ␦, the transient time scales are longer than
the chemical time scales, and if the Karlovitz
number is small: K␦/sL ⬍ 1, with K the stretch
rate and sL the burning velocity. What remains
is a balance between reaction, convection, and
diffusion, which can be considered as a steady-
state relation. Together with a similar 1D equa-
tion for the enthalpy, this set of equations is
called flamelet equations. The set of flamelet
equations can be solved by treating the system
as a 1D adiabatic premixed flame. Its solution is
called a flamelet and forms a 1D curve in
composition space parametrized by s. This curve
can be considered as a 1D manifold.
As in the ILDM method a distinction is made
between variables that are conserved by chem-
ical reactions such as the element mass frac-
tions, pressure, and enthalpy, and variables that
are changed by reactions: the species mass
fractions. Note that the chemical composition of
the burnt mixture is determined by the con-
served quantities, whereas the combustion pro-
cess from unburnt to burnt state is parametrized
by the reactive controlling variables. These re-
active controlling variables are, therefore, often
called progress variables. Following existing
manifold techniques, we first consider the case
of constant and given conserved variables.
The 1D manifold in composition space is
simply the flamelet starting at the point that
represents the unburnt mixture for which the
manifold is created. In this way, the manifold
connects the two most distinguished points in
J. A. VAN OIJEN ET AL.
composition space: the point corresponding to
the unburnt mixture and the equilibrium point.
A 2D manifold can be constructed from a set of
flamelets starting at different points on a 1D
curve in composition space with a constant
enthalpy, pressure, and element composition. A
unique choice for this starting curve cannot be
given, although it should include the unburnt
mixture and must be chosen in such way that the
resulting manifold is as large as possible. The
exact choice of the starting curve, however, has
only an effect on the manifold close to this
starting curve and because chemistry is negligi-
ble in this region, the influence can be ne-
glected. This method can be extended to a
multi-dimensional manifold of d dimensions
generated by a (d ⫺ 1)D starting “plane.”
Before a manifold can be used, it should be
parametrized by controlling variables that result
in a unique mapping Yi ⫽ Yi(Ycv,1, Ycv,2, . . . ).
In general, the conserved quantities might
change due to processes other than chemical
reaction, e.g., mixing and cooling. If variations
in a conserved variable are expected to be
important in the application, then this variable
should be added as an extra controlling variable.
If, e.g., enthalpy variations are expected, a series
of manifolds is made for different values of the
enthalpy and the enthalpy is added as extra
controlling variable to the manifold: Yi ⫽
Yi(Ycv,1, Ycv,2, . . . , h).
APPLICATION TO PREMIXED LAMINAR
METHANE/AIR FLAMES
In this paper we consider premixed methane/air
flames at atmospheric pressure with an equiva-
lence ratio of ␾ ⫽ 0.9. The mass fraction of
oxygen Y O2 is continuously decreasing during
the combustion process in these flames. There-
fore, Y O2 is an appropriate progress variable.
For now, we assume that one progress variable
is enough to represent the combustion process.
This will be validated by a comparison between
results of detailed and reduced computations.
Because the pressure is constant and because
there is no mixing of the inlet flow with sur-
rounding air or other gas flows with a different
stoichiometry, the pressure and the element
mass fractions are not used as extra controlling
variables. The enthalpy, however, is not con-
MODELING OF PREMIXED SYSTEMS WITH FGM 2127

served in the flames studied here, because the

stabilization of the flame is caused by energy
losses to the burner. Moreover, radiation and
cooling due to walls and heat exchangers may
change the enthalpy. To account for these non-
adiabatic effects the enthalpy h is introduced as
an extra controlling variable. This means that
the flamelet equations [Eq. (3)] have to be
solved for different values of the enthalpy. The
enthalpy of the flamelet can be changed in many
ways. Here we have chosen a combination of
two ways. First, the enthalpy of the flamelet is
varied simply by changing the temperature of
the unburnt mixture Tu. Here the temperature
of the unburnt mixture is varied between 400
Fig. 1. Projection of the 2D FGM data set onto the Y O2 ⫺
and 240 K, corresponding to h ⫽ ⫺0.122 and h plane for a methane/air mixture with an equivalence ratio
⫺0.295 kJ/g, respectively. For Tu ⫽ 240 K this of ␾ ⫽ 0.9.
results in a flame temperature of Tb ⫽ 2105 K,
which is still quite high. In order to reach lower
values of Tb without using unrealistic values of
⭸
Tu, we calculate burner-stabilized flamelets. By 共 ␳ h兲 ⫹ ⵜ 䡠 共 ␳ vh兲
decreasing the mass flow rate the flame loses ⭸t

冉 冊
more energy to the burner and the enthalpy ␭
decreases. This procedure is continued until the ⫺ⵜ䡠 ⵜh ⫽ ⵜ 䡠 共ᏰⵜY O2), (5)
cp
flame extinguishes. In Ref. [7] the enthalpy is
decreased by converting fuel and oxygen into where an effective diffusion coefficient Ᏸ (Y O2,
products keeping the temperature constant. Al- h) has been introduced. Following Ref. [7] the
though two different methods have been used, coefficient Ᏸ can be determined by considering
the simulation results are as good as undistin- the enthalpy flux due to preferential diffusion
guishable. This confirms that the exact choice of
Ᏺ:
the starting curve has a negligible effect on the

冘 h 冉 Le1 ⫺ 1冊 c␭ ⵜY
final result. N
The manifold data set is shown in Fig. 1. This Ᏺ⫽ i i (6)
data set is stored in a database that can be i⫽1 i p

linked to a flame simulation code. Together

with the momentum and continuity equations, Substituting the manifold relations Yi ⫽ Yi(Y O2,
the CFD code has to solve conservation equa- h) yields:
tions for the controlling variables. In manifold
冘h
N
methods these equations are derived by a pro-
Ᏺ⫽
jection of the full system on the manifold. In the i
i⫽1
FGM method the perturbation P is the only
term in Eq. (3), which is changed by the projec-
tion. Because this term can be neglected com-
pared to the other terms, ordinary conservation
冉 1
Lei
⫺1 冊 冉
␭ ⭸Y i
c p ⭸Y O2
ⵜYO2 ⫹
⭸Y i
⭸h
ⵜh . 冊
equations for the controlling variable Y O2 and h (7)
are found [7]:
To avoid unrealistic energy fluxes through inert
⭸
⭸t 冉
(␳Y O2) ⫹ ⵜ 䡠 共 ␳ vY O2兲 ⫺ ⵜ 䡠
1 ␭
LeO2 c p
ⵜY O2 冊 walls, the gradient of the enthalpy is replaced by
using the lower-dimensional manifold relation
h ⫽ Ᏼ(Y O2). Finally, this gives us the following
⫽ ẇ O2, (4) expression for Ᏺ:
2128 J. A. VAN OIJEN ET AL.

Fig. 2. Isocontours of (a) T, (b) Y O2, (c) YCO, and (d) YO computed by using (left) a detailed mechanism and (right) a FGM.
The same isolevels are used for detailed and FGM computations. The spatial coordinates are given in cm.

Ᏺ ⫽ ᏰⵜY O2, with velocity profile at the inlet is parabolic with a

maximum velocity of vmax ⫽ 1 m/s at the center.

冘 h 冉 Le1 ⫺ 1冊 c␭ 冉 ⭸Y⭸Y 冊 Isocontours of temperature and several mass

N
i ⭸Y i ⭸Ᏼ
Ᏸ⫽ i ⫹
i⫽1 i p O2 ⭸h ⭸Y O2
This coefficient is stored in the FGM database
as a function of the controlling variables to-
gether with all other variables needed to solve
the conservation equations, i.e., ␳, ␭, cp, T, and
ẇ O2.
The performance of the FGM method using
one progress variable and h is demonstrated by
a simulation of a premixed methane/air that
which stabilizes on a 2D slot burner mounted in
a cooled box. The burner slot is 6 mm wide,
whereas the box is 24 mm wide. The tempera-
ture of both the burner and the box walls are
kept at a temperature of Twall ⫽ 300 K. The
. fractions are displayed in Fig. 2 for both de-
tailed and reduced computations. Note that not
(8) the complete computational domain is shown,
but only the most interesting region around the
flame front. From the contour plots in Fig. 2 we
may conclude that the results of the FGM
method using only one progress variable and
the enthalpy are in excellent agreement with the
detailed computations: not only the position of
the flame front is predicted very well, but the
absolute values of the mass fractions as well.
Flame cooling governing the stabilization of the
flame on the burner is reproduced very well by
the FGM, although one can hardly speak of
flamelets in this cold region. Also, in the flame
tip, where stretch and curvature are very impor-
MODELING OF PREMIXED SYSTEMS WITH FGM
Fig. 3. Temperature and mass fraction profiles of HCO and
CH2O in a stretched flame for unit Lewis numbers and a
strain rate of 1000/s. The symmetry plane is located at x ⫽
0. Solid: detailed reaction mechanism. Dashed: FGM with
one progress variable (Y O2).
tant, the reduced computations appear to coin-
cide with the detailed calculations. Close to the
burner wall there are some differences in the
YCO contours: the contours don’t attach to the
wall in the FGM case. Because YCO follows
directly from the manifold database, which does
not include diffusion along the flame front, the
CO concentration is underpredicted by the
FGM in this diffusion-dominated area. To take
this into account the manifold should be ex-
tended with a second progress variable.
To get more insight in the influence of flame
stretch on the accuracy of the method, strained
flames are simulated. Planar stoichiometric
methane/air flames are computed in the back-
to-back configuration [15] for different strain
rates using both detailed and reduced reaction
mechanisms. Temperature field and mass frac-
tion profiles of HCO and CH2O in a strained
flame are shown in Fig. 3 for unit Lewis num-
bers and a strain rate of 103/s. The results
computed with a 1D FGM agree very well with
the detailed results. Not only the absolute con-
centrations of the radicals, but also the position
of the flame front compares well, indicating that
the mass-burning rate is well predicted. Follow-
ing De Goey and Ten Thije Boonkkamp [9] we
study the mass-burning rate ␳u, as a function of
the Karlovitz integral Ka, given by:
2129
Fig. 4. Scaled mass-burning rate of stagnation flames as
function of the Karlovitz integral Ka for Lei ⫽ 1. Solid:
detailed reaction mechanism. Dashed: FGM with one
progress variable (Y O2). Dotted: theory according to Eq. (4).
sb
Ka ⫽
1
␳ us L 冕
⫺⬁
␳ KỸ ds (9)
where ␳usL is the stretchless mass-burning rate,
K is the local stretch rate, and Ỹ is the normal-
ized progress variable. By using this definition
for Ka and the ideas of integral analysis of
Chung and Law [16], De Goey et al. [9] showed
that the scaled mass-burning rate decreases
linearly with Ka:
␳ u/ ␳ us L ⫽ 1 ⫺ Ka. (10)
The mass-burning rate is determined at sb, the
point where the chemical source term of the
progress variable has been decreased by a factor
of 10 from its maximum value. When unit Lewis
numbers are used for all species, the element
mass fractions and the enthalpy are constant in
these flames. The results displayed in Fig. 4
show that in this case a FGM with only one
progress variable is sufficient to reproduce de-
tailed computations. This indicates that the
main effects of flame stretch on the mass-
burning rate can be reproduced by a 1D FGM.
When non-unit Lewis numbers are used, vari-
ations in the element mass fractions and the
enthalpy occur due to preferential diffusion
effects, which result in an extra decrease of the
mass-burning rate as function of Ka compared
to Eq. (10). To study the influence of these
2130
Fig. 5. Scaled mass-burning rate of stagnation flames as
function of the Karlovitz integral Ka for Lei ⫽ 1. Solid:
detailed reaction mechanism. Dashed: FGM with one
progress variable. Dotted: FGM with two controlling
variables.
variations two FGMs are used: 1) a manifold
with one progress variable; and 2) a manifold
with one progress variable and one extra con-
trolling variable to represent the variations in
element mass fractions and enthalpy. In the case
of weak stretch, one can show that the enthalpy
and element fractions change linearly with the
strain rate [9]. This coupling between the differ-
ent elements and enthalpy is used in the con-
struction of the second manifold. To extend the
1D manifold with an extra controlling variable,
a series of flamelets is computed, where both
the enthalpy and element composition of the
unburnt mixture is varied simultaneously using
this coupling. This set of flamelets is used to
contruct a 2D manifold, which is parametrized
by one progress variable and one additional
controlling variable (element mass fraction of H
for numerical reasons).
The mass-burning rates of the flames com-
puted by using these manifolds and a detailed
reaction mechanism are shown in Fig. 5. It can
be seen that variations in the enthalpy and the
element mass fractions influence the mass-burn-
ing rate significantly. The results of the manifold
with the extra controlling variable are, there-
fore, better than when only one controlling
variable is used. Because the coupling between
the variations in enthalpy and elements de-
creases for increasing strain rates, deviations
from the detailed results occur at moderate and
J. A. VAN OIJEN ET AL.
high strain rates (Ka ⬎ 0.1). To tackle this
problem a higher dimensional manifold should
be constructed by treating the variations in
enthalpy and element mass fractions indepen-
dently.
Besides the accuracy, the efficiency is another
important aspect of reduction methods. In or-
der to give an indication of the efficiency of the
FGM method the computation times of detailed
and reduced simulations are compared. For
both models we determined the time needed to
perform a time-dependent 1D flame simulation
of 10⫺3 s under the same conditions. When a
relatively simple detailed reaction mechanism
(16 species, 25 reactions) is used, a single time
step takes 247 ms central processing unit time
on a Silicon Graphics workstation, whereas each
time step lasts only 32 ms when the FGM is
applied. This speed up is caused by the reduc-
tion of the number of differential equations to
be solved and a faster evaluation of the chemi-
cal source terms. Another advantage of the
reduced model is that larger time steps can be
taken because the smallest time scales have
been eliminated. Therefore, the total CPU time
for the reduced computation was 20 times lower
than for the detailed simulation. An even higher
efficiency is reached if an explicit solver is used
for the reduced computations. In that case the
computation time reduces with a factor of 40.
For more complex reaction mechanisms the
speed up will be even larger.
The computation of the FGM database in-
volved ⬃30 min, which seems quite long. How-
ever, the computation time, which can be gained
in the modeling of series of complex burner
systems, is orders of magnitude larger than the
time needed to construct the database.
RESULTS OF A CERAMIC-FOAM
SURFACE BURNER IN A FURNACE
Due to the enormous reduction in computation
time, the FGM method allows us to model more
complex burner systems as well. In this paper,
results of simulations of the steady laminar
combustion on a ceramic-foam burner in a
radiating furnace are presented and compared
with measurements. The experimental setup has
been designed to investigate the stability and
MODELING OF PREMIXED SYSTEMS WITH FGM
Fig. 6. Cross-section of the experimental setup.
performance of a ceramic-foam burner in a hot
radiating furnace [13] and is shown in Fig. 6.
The setup consists of a cylindrical furnace made
of fire-resistant bricks. In the top of the furnace
a round ceramic-foam burner with a diameter of
20 cm is fitted. At the bottom a water-cooled
heat exchanger is located.
Wall temperatures are measured by using
K-thermocouples at 5 and 15 cm from the top at
the inside and outside of the brick wall. Gas
temperatures can be measured by inserting S-
thermocouples into the furnace through holes
in the brick wall at 2.5 and 8 cm below the
burner. Measurements have been performed for
a methane/air mixture with ␾ ⫽ 0.9 and a
thermal load of 200 kW/m2 corresponding to a
uniform inlet velocity of v ⫽ 7 cm/s and the
results are corrected for radiative losses.
To include the gas-solid heat transfer in the
porous burner and radiative heat exchange out-
side the foam, the enthalpy Eq. (5) has been
extended with two extra terms. The first extra
term accounts for the heat transfer between gas
and solid in the ceramic-foam burner and is
given by ␣v (Ts ⫺ T), with ␣v the volumetric
heat-transfer coefficient and Ts the temperature
of the solid phase. Outside the ceramic-foam
burner this term is zero. The second extra term
is a radiation term, Qrg, which is only present
outside the foam burner and accounts for the
radiative heat transfer due to gas radiation.
Inside the porous region that forms the burner,
an equation for the temperature of the solid
phase is solved:
2131
TABLE 1
Properties of the ceramic-foam surface burner.
Property Symbol Value
Porosity ␹ 0.8 —
Tortuosity ␶ 0.4 —
Conductivity ␭s 1.0 䡠 10⫺1 W/mK
Heat transfer coefficient ␣v 4.0 䡠 106 W/m3K
⫺ⵜ 䡠 共共1 ⫺ ␹ 兲 ␶␭ sⵜT s兲 ⫽ ⫺␣ v共T s ⫺ T兲 ⫹ Q rs,
(11)
with ␹ the porosity, ␶ the tortuosity, and ␭s the
heat-conduction coefficient of the solid phase.
The values used for these coefficients and ␣v are
shown in Table 1.
The radiation term inside and outside the
ceramic-foam (Qrs and Qrg, respectively) are
determined by using the discrete transfer
method [17] for a gray gas both inside and
outside the ceramic foam. The discrete transfer
method solves the radiative transfer equation:
di⬘
ds
冉 ␴
⫽ ⫺k i⬘ ⫺ T 4 ,
␲
冊 (12)
which relates the local and directional radiative
intensity i⬘ to the path length s and the local
absorption coefficient k and the temperature. In
Eq. (12), ␴ denotes the Stefan–Boltzmann con-
stant. The absorption coefficient used for the
ceramic foam is 104/m, whereas in the hot
flue-gas region an absorption coefficient of
0.46/m is used. In the ceramic-foam region the
radiation originates from the solid phase and,
therefore, in this region the solid temperature is
used in Eq. (12) instead of the gas temperature.
The boundary surfaces are modeled as diffuse
gray surfaces with an emissivity ⑀. The radiative
heat transfer for these surfaces is given by:
冉 冕 冊
qr ⫽ ⑀ ␴T 4 ⫺ i⬘i cos ␪ d ␻ , (13)
2␲
where ␪ denotes the angle with the normal
vector on the surface and ␻ a solid angle. The
intensity i⬘i of the radiation impinging on the
surface is found by tracing rays back to their
origin and solving Eq. (12) over this path. The
boundary condition for Eq. (12) at the origin is
2132 J. A. VAN OIJEN ET AL.

found from the intensity i⬘o of the radiation

leaving the originating surface:

i⬘o ⫽
1⫺⑀
␲ 冕2␲
i⬘i cos ␪ d ␻ ⫹
⑀␴ 4
␲
T . (14)

The source terms in the energy equation for the

gas phase and the solid phase (Qrg and Qrs,
respectively) are determined from:

Qr ⫽ k 冉冕
4␲
冊
i⬘d ␻ ⫺ 4 ␴ T 4 . (15)

For the angular integral in Eq. (15), the inten-

Fig. 7. Numerical results for temperature (gray scales) and
sities of the rays traced for the surface calcula-
streamlines (lines).
tions are used.
The inlet and outlet of the furnace are treated
as black surfaces (⑀ ⫽ 1) radiating at a temper- streamlines and the temperature field is repre-
ature of 300 K. The temperature of the furnace sented with gray scales. In the figure it is shown
wall, Twall, is computed by using a relation for that the burnt gases with a temperature of
nearly 1700 K are cooled by the walls and the
the heat flux through the wall q ⫽ ⫺␣s(Twall ⫺
heat exchanger and leave the combustion cham-
Tair), with Tair the temperature of the surround-
ber with a temperature of ⬃1000 K. The flame
ing air and ␣s the heat-transfer coefficient con-
itself is hardly visible because it is only a milli-
taining contributions from conduction through
meter thick and is located very close to and
the wall and free convection and radiation at the
partly within the burner. To show the flame
outside of the wall. The temperature of the
structure in more detail, temperature and spe-
water-cooled heat exchanger is assumed to be
cies profiles along the center axis are shown in
300 K. The furnace walls and the heat ex-
Fig. 8. It shows clearly that the small scales are
changer are treated as diffuse gray surfaces with
resolved by the computation and that the com-
an emissivity of 0.4. More details about the bustion process starts within the porous me-
radiation model can be found in Ref. [18]. dium. In the same figure we have also shown the
The computation has been performed by
using the manifold presented in the previous
section. This manifold is based on a skeletal
mechanism consisting of 16 species and 25
reactions [14] and does not include C2 and NO
chemistry. However, we want to emphasize that
the FGM method can be applied to any reaction
mechanism. Therefore, if NO chemistry is in-
cluded in the starting mechanism, it will be
possible to predict NO emissions by using FGM.
The flow grid is a rectangular mesh of 106 ⫻
50 cells, with refinements at the flame front and
near the walls. The radiation grid is constructed
from the flow grid by combining multiple flow
cells to a single radiation cell. The computing
time for this simulation was ⬃15 h on a Silicon
Fig. 8. Temperature and YO profiles along the center axis.
Graphics R10000 workstation. Symbols and lines are used to represent FGM and 1D
The results of the numerical computation are detailed results, respectively. The detailed results have been
shown in Fig. 7. The flow pattern is indicated by computed on a much finer grid.
MODELING OF PREMIXED SYSTEMS WITH FGM
Fig. 9. Radial profiles of the temperature at 2.5 and 8 cm
from the burner surface. Symbols and lines are used to
represent measurements and simulations, respectively.
results of a 1D simulation [12], because the
flame at the center of the burner can be consid-
ered to be 1D. This 1D computation is per-
formed by using detailed chemical kinetics on a
much finer grid. It demonstrates that the results
of the temperature and species profiles com-
puted by using the FGM are in good agreement
with detailed computations. The small differ-
ence in temperature profile (and therefore in
YO) is caused by the different treatment of
radiation and conduction in the ceramic foam.
However, the temperature of the burnt gas is
well predicted, which indicates that the stabili-
zation of the flame on the burner can be mod-
eled by using a FGM.
The radial profiles of the temperature have
been measured at 2.5 and 8 cm from the burner
surface and the results are shown in Fig. 9. It
can be seen that the predicted temperatures
coincide well with the experimental values. The
main problem in the measurements is the un-
certainty in the location of the thermocouple.
Due to this, the error in the measured temper-
atures is about 50 K. In Fig. 10 the measured
wall temperatures are compared with the com-
puted results. Both the temperatures measured
at the inside and at the outside coincide well
with the numerical results. The temperatures
measured at z ⫽ 15 cm are outside the compu-
tational domain. However, when the numerical
results are extrapolated, they seem to agree with
the measurements.
2133
Fig. 10. Vertical temperature profiles along the inside and
outside of the furnace wall. Symbols and lines are used to
represent measurements and simulations, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
A semi-practical burner system has been mod-
eled by using a FGM with two controlling
variables and the results have been compared
with measurements. The small differences be-
tween computed and measured temperatures
are within the experimental error. Measure-
ments of species concentrations and flow veloc-
ities are planned for the near future. The results
of detailed simulations of a 2D Bunsen flame
are also reproduced very well by the reduced
computations.
Because in the FGM method a manifold is
generated by using 1D flamelets, it can be
considered as a combination of a manifold and
a flamelet approach. The method shares the
basic idea with flamelet approaches that multi-
dimensional flames can be considered as a set of
1D flames. The implementation, however, is
typical for a manifold method (ILDM), which
means that ordinary conservation equations are
solved for the controlling variables. This may be
considered as an advantage of the FGM method
compared to flamelet methods. Moreover, the
number of progress variables is not limited to
one as in existing flamelet approaches. In the
regions of a premixed flame where reaction is
balanced by convection and diffusion the FGM
method is more accurate than reduction tech-
niques based on local chemical equilibria, be-
cause the most important transport processes
are also taken into account. The accuracy of the
2134
method can be enhanced by adding extra
progress variables. Results of strained methane/
air flames in stagnation-point flow have shown
that the main effects of flame stretch on the
mass burning rate can be modeled by using a
FGM with only one progress variable. To cap-
ture the small remaining effects of flame
stretch, extra controlling variables can be added.
The computation time of flame simulations
can be reduced by at least a factor of 20 by
applying a FGM. Finally, we may conclude that
the FGM method can be used to perform
accurate and efficient simulations of premixed
laminar flames in complex burner systems.
The financial support of the Dutch Technology
Foundation (STW) and NOVEM is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Maas, U., and Thévenin, D. Twenty-Seventh Sympo-
sium (International) on Combustion, The Combustion
Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1998, p. 1183–1189.
2. Chen, J. H., Echekki, T., and Kollmann, W., Combust.
Flame 116:15– 48 (1998).
3. Najm, H. N., Paul, P. H., Mueller, C. J., and Wyckoff,
P. S., Combust. Flame 113:312–332 (1998).
4. Peters, N., in Reduced Kinetic Mechanisms and Asymp-
totic Approximations for Methane-Air Flames (M. D.
Smooke, Ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991, pp. 48 –
67.
5. Maas, U., and Pope, S. B. Twenty-Fifth Symposium
(International) on Combustion, The Combustion Insti-
tute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1994, pp. 1349 –1356.
J. A. VAN OIJEN ET AL.
6. Massias, A., Diamantis, D., Mastorakos, E., and Gous-
sis, D. A., Combust. Flame 117:685–708 (1999).
7. van Oijen, J. A., and de Goey, L. P. H., Combust. Sci.
Technol. 161:113–138 (2000).
8. Peters, N. Twenty-First Symposium (International) on
Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh,
PA, 1986, pp. 1231–1250.
9. de Goey, L. P. H., and Ten Thije Boonkkamp,
J. H. M., Combust. Flame 119:253–271 (1999).
10. Gicquel, O., Darabiha, N., and Thévenin, D. Twenty-
Eighth Symposium (International) on Combustion, The
Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 2000, pp. 1901–
1908.
11. Viskanta, R. Eighth Symposium (International) on
Transport Phenomena in Combustion, San Francisco,
1995, pp. 64 – 87.
12. Bouma, P. H., and de Goey, L. P. H., Combust. Flame
119:133–143 (1999).
13. Lammers, F. A., Bouma, P. H., Althuizen, T. A. M.,
and de Goey, L. P. H. Fifth International Conference on
Technologies and Combustion for a Clean Environment,
Lisbon, Portugal, 1999, pp. 533–539.
14. Smooke, M. D., and Giovangigli, V., in Reduced Ki-
netic Mechanisms and Asymptotic Approximations for
Methane-Air Flames (M. D. Smooke, Ed.), Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1991, pp. 1–28.
15. Dixon–Lewis, G. Twenty-Third International Sympo-
sium on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pitts-
burgh, PA, 1990, pp. 305–324.
16. Chung, S., and Law, C. K., Combust. Flame 72:325–336
(1988).
17. Shah, N. G. (1979). Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Mechanical
Engineering, University of London, London, UK.
18. Lammers, F. A. (2001). Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Mechan-
ical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology,
Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Received 24 February 2001; revised 25 July 2001; accepted
20 August 2001