COMBUSTION AND FLAME 44:261-275 (1982) 261

TURBULENT COMBUSTION

Buoyant Axisymmetric Turbulent Diffusion Flames in Still Air

H-Z. YOU and G. M. FAETH

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

A theoretical and experimental study of buoyant, axisymmetric, turbulent, diffusion flames is described. Measurements
included profiles of mean velocity, velocity fluctuations, Reynolds stress, mean temperature, and mean concentrations
for two flames having heat release rates of 1.67 and 8.51 kW, respectively. Flame shape and the variation of flame
radiation along the axis were also measured. A portion of the measurements were compared with a k-c--g turbulence
model which was developed earlier and has been calibrated for a variety of combusting and noncombusting forced flows
at relatively high Reynolds numbers. The model provides for buoyancy in the governing equations for mean quantifies,
but neglects effects of buoyancy on turbulence characteristics. The model provided an estimation of data trends;
however, errors in the predictions were greater than for forced combusting flows. The greatest discrepancy involved the
width of the flow in the upper portions of the flames, which the model underestimated by as much as 50%. Although care
was taken to minimize room disturbances during the tests, it is felt that they may be an important factor in the
discrepancy. Effects of low Reynolds numbers and buoyancy on turbulence properties, uncertainties in estimating the
initial conditions for the computations, and the accuracy of the measurements are also advanced as factors contributing
to the differences between predictions and measurements.

INTRODUCTION gas chromatography; visible flame shape, employ-

Buoyant turbulent diffusion flames, resulting from
natural fires, are distinguished by low initial mo-
mentum of the gases leaving the fuel source; there-
fore flow properties are strongly influenced by
buoyancy. The low velocities in these flames,
coupled with effects of low initial Reynolds number
and buoyancy, present both theoretical and experi-
mental difficulties. Thus, progress in understanding
natural fires has been slower than for the forced
flow flames common in industrial applications.
The main objective of this investigation was to
measure the structure of typical buoyant diffusion
flames, in order to provide data for the evaluation
of theoretical models. The test configuration was an
axisymmetric flame rising vertically in still air.
Measurements included mean velocity, velocity
fluctuations, and Reynolds stress, using a lase~
Doppler anemometer (LDA); mean temperature,
using fine-wire thermocouples; mean concentration
of gaseous species, using isokinetic sampling and
Copyright @ 1982 by The C o m b u s t i o n Institute
Published by Elsevier North Holland, Inc.
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
ing both visual and photographic methods; and
radiative heat flux, employing a radiometer.
While acquisition of new data was the main
objective of the investigation, the results were also
compared with numerical predictions. These were
based on a k- E-g model of turbulent combustion
that has been satisfactorily evaluated for a number
of noncombusting and combusting flows for which
buoyancy and low Reynolds number effects are
small [1 3].
References [4-8] represent recent work on axi-
symmetric buoyant turbulent diffusion flames.
Becker and coworkers [4-6] report measurements
of mean temperature, velocity, soot concentration,
soot concentration fluctuations, and visible flame
lengths for a range of experimental conditions,
including cases with significant buoyant effects.
McCaffrey [7] and Cox and Chitty [8] investigated
buoyancy-dominated flames using the same experi-
mental apparatus, providing information on mean
velocities and mean temperatures as well as some
0010-2180182/010261+1552.75
262 H.Z. YOU and G. M. FAETH

stochastic properties of the flow. The present study
extends this work by completing more comprehen-
sive measurements, which simplify comparison
with predictions.
Integral models and dimensionless parameters
are used to correlate and interpret the data in the
cited studies [4-8]. Other recent theoretical work
on buoyant flames involves more detailed analysis
using finite difference methods and a turbulence
model to predict flow structure [9-11]. Pergament
and Fishburne I-9] employ a mixing length model
of turbulence and estimate reaction rates using
Arrhenius expressions based on mean properties,
Detailed comparisons are made between the theory
and measurements by Kent and Bilger [12] for
conditions for which buoyancy effects are small.
Evaluation of the model for buoyant flows was
limited to flame lengths, where the model correctly
indicated the trends with source Froude number
for a reasonable selection of model parameters.
Tamanini [10, 11] describes a k-E-g model of
turbulent plumes and natural fires and proposes a
method for considering the generation of turbu-
lence due to buoyancy. The predictions are corn-
pared with measurements of radiative heat flux and
flame shape by Markstein [13]. The model cor-
rectly indicates trends of the data; however, flow
widths are underestimated.
The present model is similar to that of Tamanini
[10, 11], but we have not adopted his treatment of
the effect of buoyancy in the governing equations
for turbulence quantities in order to minimize the
number of empirical model constants to be speci-
fled. The model used here has been systematically
calibrated for axisymmetric combusting and non-
combusting flows for which buoyancy and low
Reynolds number effects were small 1-1, 2].
Applying it to the present flows, without embellish-
ment, provides a well-established point of depar-
ture for subsequent consideration of these effects.
EXPERIMENTAL
Apparatus
The apparatus and instrumentation are described
elsewhere [14]. The operating conditions ofthe two
flames studied are summarized in Table 1.
The flames were fueled by natural gas flowing
from a vertical cylindrical burner tube; burner
dimensions and fuel composition appear in Table 1.
The flames were attached at the lip of the burner.

TABLE 1

Summary of Test Conditionsa

Flame I II

Fuel flow rate (mg/s) 34.1 174.0

Heat release rate (kW) 1.67 8.51
Burner exit velocity (m/s) 0.0210 0.1073
Burner exit Reynolds number uod/v0 70 356
Burner exit Richardson number ad/u02 1222 46.8
Free flame height (mm) 350 710
Height of maximum temperaturealong axis (ram) 120 270
Flame tip Rayleigh number a~ooQL2/p~CpooVoo3 1.64 × 1012 3.35 X 1013
Local Reynolds number 2raua/v~
x (mm) = 100 1750 2250
215 4250 5490
300 5340 8080

a Vertical burner with 55 mm i.d., containing an array of stainless steel screens (45 mm apart, 3940 wires/m, square
pattern, 0.10 mm wke diameter) with a similar screen spot welded across the burner exit. Ambient condition was still air
294-300 K, 97-99 kPa. Fuel was natural gas at 294-300 K (approximately 94.9% methane, 3.8% ethane, 0.3% propane,
0.4% carbon dioxide, and 0.4% nitrogen, by volume).
BUOYANT DIFFUSION FLAMES
The burner tube was free standing, with a minimum
exit height above the floor of 400 mm.
The tests were conducted in an interior room
with floor dimensions 4 m x 6 m and a ceiling
height of 5 m. The flow was protected from room
disturbances by a screened enclosure 1200 mm
square and 1800 mm high (one layer of screening,
630 wires/m, square pattern, 0.25 mm wire diame-
ter). A transite enclosure at the top of the screened
area acted as a product gas collector for a natural
draft exhaust system,
INSTRUMENTATION
Mean velocity, velocity fluctuations, and Reynolds
stress were measured with a dual-beam forward
scatter LDA, as in earlier work on open jets and
flames I-1, 2]. The LDA incorporated a Bragg cell
frequency shifter so that flow reversals could be
detected near the edge of the flow. Effects of flame
luminosity were minimized by an optical filter
placed in front of the detector. The optical system
was stationary. The LDA measuring volume was
positioned by moving the burner tube (mounted on
a milling machine vise providing a positioning
accuracy of 1 ram). The measuring volume was
ellipsoidal, with major and minor diameters of 6.6
and 0.27 mm. This resulted in gradient broadening
errors estimated to be less than 10%, for both mean
and turbulent quantities.
Difficulties were encountered in obtaining ad-
equate seeding levels for the LDA. In the upper
portions of the flames, sufficient soot was present
for seeding and low mixture fractions reduced
biasing errors. Near the base and edge of the flames,
however, it was necessary to supplement this
natural source of particles. Additional particles
were provided in high mixture fraction regions
using a small acetylene diffusion flame as a particle
generator, with the particles directed into the fuel
flow leaving the burner. Near the edge of the flow,
an oil droplet generator (average droplet diameter
0.6/~m) was used, allowing the particles to drift into
the flame with the entrained air, similar to earlier
work [1].
Mean temperatures were measured with a 50-
/~m-diameter Pt/Pt-10% Rh thermocouple. The
junction was formed by butt welding the wires. The
263
fine wires were mounted on heavier leads spaced 12
mm apart and aligned normal to the direction of
the maximum temperature gradient in order to
reduce conduction erors. The probe was moved
with a linear positioner, accurate to 1 mm. Even
though the wires were small, radiation errors were
significant due to the low velocity of the flow. The
magnitude of these errors was estimated and is
presented with the temperature measurements. The
estimates are based on a range of thermocouple
emissivities since the thermocouples became tar-
nished with use. The radiative heat flux measure-
ments were used to estimate flame radiation to the
thermocouple near the edge of the flow.
The mean composition of gaseous species (CH4,
H 2, CO 2, CO, H20, 02, and N2) was measured by
isokinetic sampling at the mean gas velocity. The
probe, 2 mm internal bore and water cooled, was
moved with a linear positioner. The coolant tem-
perature was maintained at 360K to avoid con-
densation of water vapor in the probe. The gas
mixtures were analyzed with a gas chromatograph.
Calibration experiments to determine the effect of
gas sampling rates, conducted at several positions
in the flames, indicated that sampling velocities
within ___50% of the correct mean velocity had little
influence on the composition measurements.
The radiant heat flux leaving the flame was
measured with a gas-purged, water-cooled sensor
(Medtherm Radiation Heat Flux Transducer, Type
64F-10-22, 150° viewing angle) mounted near the
edge of the flame (r/x=0.45) and directed toward
the axis.
Flame shape, defined by the visible luminous
edge of the flame as observed in a darkened room,
was measured in two ways. The first involved
photographing the flame with a still camera (4 x 5
Graphlex camera employing Polaroid, Type 52
film with a 40 ms exposure time). Ten photographs
were made of each flame and were analyzed for the
mean position of the flame edge and the 95%
confidence interval (using Student's t distribution)
as a function of height above the burner. The
second method involved positioning pointers at the
maximum and minimum flame positions, at vari-
ous distances above the burner, as described
earlier 1,15];the flame edge was then taken to be the
arithmetic average of these two limits.
264
TURBULENCE MODEL
The model developed by Lockwood and co-
workers [3, 16] was adopted. Earlier work in this
laboratory has demonstrated good results for
forced flows. This includes the study of Shearer et
al. [1] for forced constant and variable density jets
in still air, which demonstrated good agreement
between predicted and measured mean and turbu-
lent quantities, using the model constants rccom-
mended by Lockwood and Naguib [3].
Subsequent comparisons for a forced combusting
n-propane jet, using the same constants, were also
satisfactory [2]. These results provided a calibra-
tion of the model for flows having relatively high
initial Reynolds numbers for which buoyancy
effects were small. Therefore, the model serves as a
useful reference for examining the present flames,
for which these effects should be more significant,
The model employs the boundary layer ap-
proximations for steady, axisymmetric, turbulent
flow. The environment is an infinite stagnant
medium having fixed composition and tempera-
ture. Flow velocities are low; therefore, viscous
dissipation and kinetic energy are ignored in the
mean flow equations. Typical of most models of
turbulence [1-3, 10, 11, 16], the exchange coef-
ficients of all species and heat are assumed to be the
same. Local chemical equilibrium is also assumed
at each point in the flow.
In order to reduce the number of empirical
parameters to be specified, limiting cases are con-
sidered with respect to radiation. The first limit
involves ignoring radiant heat losses entirely, simi-
lar to Mao et al. [2]. The second limit is based on
the observation of Markstein [13] that the total
radiative power of a flame is nearly proportional to
its rate of chemical energy release. Therefore, we
assume that the flame is optically thin and that a
fixed fraction of the chemical energy released by
reaction is radiated to the surroundings. This
fraction, 200/0, is selected to bound the radiative
heat losses measured for the present flames.
For negligible radiation, under the present as-
sumptions, the instantaneous properties at each
point in the flow correspond to the thermodynamic
state attained when an amount f of fluid from the
burner tube and 1 - f of ambient fluid, at their
H-Z. YOU and G. M. FAETH
initial states, are adiabatically mixed and brought
to thermodynamic equilibrium at the ambient
pressure of the flow. This general approach was
also applied to the second radiation limit, after
assuming that the fixed fraction of the chemical
energy released during eqt~ilibration was lost.
With this approach, a unique set of state proper-
ties can be computed for each radiation limit. This
gives temperature, composition, and density as a
function of mixture fraction, employing conven-
tional equilibrium calculations. Ideal gas behavior
was assumed, with allowance for variable specific
heats and dissociation. The calculations were corn-
pleted using the package computer program CEC-
72 [17], which incorporates JANAF thermochemi-
cal properties for the combustion gases. The fuel
used in the test flames was predominantly methane
(cf. Table 1) and, consistent with the accuracy of the
composition measurements, was approximated as
pure methane. The ambient gas was approximated
as dry air. Both reactants were taken to have an
initial temperature of 300K.
Determination of state properties requires some
rather arbitrary decisions concerning the extent of
equilibration. Low and high mixture fractions are
outside normal flammability limits. Furthermore,
unreasonable quantities of soot are predicted for
mixture fractions near unity. As in earlier work,
complete equilibrium was assumed for mixture
fractions less than 0.08; for higher mixture fractions,
the formation of soot and the equilibration of the
water-gas reaction was suppressed [2]. Recent
measurements by Mitchell et al., [18] suggest that
the water-gas reaction is not equilibrated for
equivalence ratios greater than 2 in typical methane
diffusion flames, tending to support this approach.
In addition, it was not possible to reconcile the
mean temperature and mixture fraction measure-
ments at high mixture fractions for the present
flames without discounting the water-gas reaction.
The state properties for the present test flames at
the limit of no radiative heat loss are illustrated in
Fig. 1. Temperature, density, and the mass fractions
of methane, nitrogen, oxygen, and the major
product species are plotted as a function of mixture
fraction. The results for 20% radiative heat loss are
qualitatively similar, but exhibit a reduction of
mixture temperature (a maximum of 290K at the
BUOYANT DIFFUSION FLAMES 265

Z ~ O O | ~ 2.0 tions follow the approach outlined by Gosman et

al., [16] and discussed by Shearer [19].
ZOO0 • T t K ) "-~ 1.6 With these assumptions, the governing equa-
/ tions are

lao, .a OT +

801)
~Z/~ .4
= B(fi)-a~5~ -/5)=D(f) =0, (1)
(~-t2
4o( P(kg/m3) -- -o D(k)=#, -p~, (2)

.8 MASSFRACTIONS D(E) = C, lflt ~ (Ou'~

~ r r ) 2 _C,2f3 k - , (3)

2 _eg
.S . D(g)= Co,#, - Cgzp ~ - , (4)

.4- n where

CO
o0 .2 ~ .4 .6 .8 1.0 #,=cask~/e, (63
f
Fig. 1. Equation of state for methane combustion in air
at atmospheric pressure (reactants initially at 300 K and
no radiative heat loss).
and

D(¢)=lSfi ~xx +/Sv° ~r r ~r r %

-- ~ (7)
stoichiometric mixture ratio) and a slight increase
in density.
As in past studies [1-3, 16], the turbulent flow for ~b=fi, f k, e, or g.
model involves the solution of Reynolds-averaged The parameters Ci and a i in Eqs. (1)-(7) are
conservation equations. Mean quantities are ob- constants. Two sets of constants (Table 2) were
tained by solving conservation equations for mass,
momentum, and mixture fraction. Turbulence
TABLE 2
characteristics are found by solving model trans-
port equations for turbulence kinetic energy, dissi- Constants in the Turbulence Model
pation, and concentration fluctuations. With this
Set Cu Cel CUl Ce2 = Cg 2 of = ag ok ae
approach, several terms involving density fluctu-
ations are ignored, for lack of better information, i.a 0 . 0 9 1.44 2.8 1.84 0.7 1.0 1.3
The justification for this approach rests on past ii.b 0.09 1.57 2.8 1.92 0.9 1.0 1.3
success for a number of variable density flows [1-3,
16]. While buoyancy is considered in the mean a Employed in Refs. [1-3, 19] for variable density
flows.
equations, its effect on turbulence is ignored. T h e b Employed in Ref. [16] (except for Ce2 = Cg 2 =
details of the development of the governing equa- 1.82 and 1.90) and Ref. [20].
 266
examined during the present calculations. Set i
corresponds to the values employed during calib-
ration of this model [1, 2, 19], where best results
were obtained using the original recommendations
of Lockwood and Naguib [3]. Set ii corresponds to
values used in recent work by Lockwood and
coworkers [16, 20]. The individual values of the
two sets of constants are not very different, with
CEz=Co2 and ai=cro in both cases,
The mean value of any scalar quantity (other
than f,, k, E, g, and #0 is computed as a weighted
average
foI
c~= (a(f)P(f) df (8)
The state relation, e:g., Fig. 1, provides q)(f). P (f) is
the probability density function for f, chosen to be a
clipped Gaussian function [1-3]. P(f) has two
parameters, the most probable value and the
variance. They can be found fromfand g, which are
known as a result of integrating Eqs. (1) and (4).
Lockwood and Naguib [3] describe this entire
procedure in some detail,
The calculations were begun at a position 100
mm above the exit of the burner, using measured
properties at this station for initial conditions. This
approach was chosen because the region near the
burner exit, where the flame contracts as the flow
accelerates, is not strictly a boundary layer flow.
Effects of laminar flow and transition, which have
not been incorporated into the model, were also
observed near the exit of the burner.
This choice of the initial condition eliminates the
need to consider the development of the shear layer
at the edge of the flow, near the exit of the burner,
Throughout the region that was considered, ap-
propriate boundary conditions for Eqs. (1)-(7) are
r--0, ~ - ----0; r--*oo, ~b=0. (9)
At the initial condition,__the measurements gave
complete profiles of fi, f, u,z, T, and the Fi. This
provides the initial values of fi and f immediately;
however, initial values of k, ¢, and g must be
estimated,
H-Z. YOU and G. M. FAETH
The initial values of k were estimated from the
velocity fluctuation__ measurements. For isotropic
turbulence, k = 3u '2/2, while computations for non-
combusting plumes suggest that k = u '2 [11]. The
latter value was used in the calculations due to the
similarity of buoyant plumes and natural fires.
The initial value of ¢ was obtained by estimating
the value of the turbulence viscosity and employing
this, along with k, to compute e from Eq. (6).
Seeding difficulties limited the reliability and avail-
ability of Reynolds stress measurements at the
initial condition; therefore, the turbulence viscosity
was estimated using Prandtl's mixing length
theory. Combining this expression with Eq. (6)
yields the initial estimate
E= 16k2/(t~2 0~- ) , (10)
where the width of the flow 6 and the velocity
gradient were obtained from the measurements.
The initial value of g was estimated using the
measurements offand ~. Given f a t any location, T
can be computed as a function ofg using Eq. (8) and
the state relation. The values of g which matched
predicted and measured values of ~were employed
for the initial condition.
The method of solution was similar to earlier
work [1, 2], utilizing a modified version of
GENMIX [21]. The computations employed 33
cross-stream grid nodes, with a maximum axial
step size corresponding to the minimum of either
2Vo of the current radius of the flow or the position
where the entrained flow was 10~o of the current
flow. Reduction of these parameters had no signif-
icant effect on the results.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
General Ol~ervatioas
Radial profiles were measured at 100, 215, and 300
mm above the exit of the burner. Axial profile
measurements spanned the range 100-350 ram.
The maximum temperature along the axis was at
120 mm for flame I; therefore, these results era-
phasize the upper portions of a natural fire. The
BUOYANT DIFFUSION FLAMES 267

TABLE 3 dioxide in air). The maximum discrepancy between

Mass Conservation Balances the expected and measured value of a quantity is
42~o, for the measured fuel flow rate of flame I at
x (ram) rhF (mg/s)a rhc/mn b tho2#hN2 c x = 3 0 0 mm. The error is largest here since the
Flame I composition of fuel and combustion products is
0d 34.1 3.07 0.304 lowest at this condition, which maximizes com-
100 27.7 2.10 0.346 position errors. Checks of the remaining parame-
215 24.8 3.41 0.319 ters agree with expectations within 20-30~o.
300 19.9 3.33 0.316 Repeated measurements and checks of test pro-
Flame II cedures were unable to improve these results.
0a 174.0 3.07 0.304
I00 120.0 3.19 0.307 The main reason for the mass conservation
215 148.0 3.93 0.288 discrepancies is felt to be inaccuracies near the edge
300 176.0 3.39 0.306 of the flow, where concentrations of fuel and
combustion products are low, leading to reduced
a Total mass flow rate of material originating from accuracy for the composition measurements.
burner fuel flow.
b Ratio of mass flow rates of element carbon to ele- Errors near the edge of the flow are magnified in
ment hydrogen, checks on conservation of mass since even low
c Ratio of mass flow rate of element oxygen to ele- concentrations can yield significant flow rates of
ment nitrogen, material, due to the relatively large flow area in this
d Burner flow condition, except that of rho2/rhN2 , region. In addition, the interpretation of average
which is the ratio for dry air. values obtained from the measurements also has an
effect. The velocity and temperature measurements
maximum temperature along the axis was at 270 approach a time average using present techniques;
m m for flame II; in this case the test range covered however, isokinetic sampling tends to yield a Favre
the lower portions of the flame, average for compositions [22]. Combining such
Several independent measurements were made measurements to obtain a total mean mass flux
of each quantity. Repeatability was within the yields errors that are difficult to estimate in the
following limits: mean velocity, 5~o; mean tempera- absence of measurements of velocity-
ture, 6~o; mean concentrations, 15~o; velocity flue- concentration covariances. Effects of axial turbu-
tuations, 11~o; Reynolds stress, 20~o; flame radi- lent transport [11], seeding difficulties, and varying
ation flux, 7~o; and mean flame position, 5 ~ o . humidity of the ambient air are also factors
Rechecking measurements over a period of months contributing to the error.
gave results within these limits. Measurements and predictions for flames I and
Conservation of mass was examined in order to 11 are shown in Figs. 2-5 and 6-9. Radial profiles at
check the measurements. This involved integrating x = 100 mm, the initial condition for the calcu-
the measurements across the flow to get the mass lations, appear in Figs. 2 and 6. Properties along the
flow rate of material originating from the burner, as axis of the flames are illustrated in Figs. 3 and 7.
well as the mass flow rates of elemental carbon, Radial profiles at the upper two measuring lo-
hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. The results are cations appear in Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9. The predic-
summarized in Table 3, where the burner flow rate, tions illustrated in Figs. 2-9 employed the model
the ratio of the mass flow rates of elemental carbon constants of set i. Predictions for both adiabatic
and hydrogen, and the ratio of the elemental flow flow and 20% radiation loss are shown, except for
rates of oxygen and nitrogen are given for each test species concentrations, where only results allowing
location. The first two quantities can be compared for radiation losses are illustrated in order to avoid
with burner exit conditions and the last to the overcrowding the figures. In other instances, results
composition of air (neglecting the relatively small for the two models overlap where only a single solid
oxygen and nitrogen concentrations of the fuel and line is shown. Effects of model constants and the
the small amounts of water vapor and carbon influence of radiant heat losses on species concen-
268 HoZ. YOU and G. M. FAETH

I5LMEAsUREMeNTs:SYMBOLS 1.0
• |PREDICTIONS: r-02
/ ADIABATIC
L 20% RADIATION 0.~
LQ ~ ,r_f/fc .I ~- -co2 !

0.5 ~ - . ~ _ 0 " •

o.~ - ~'/~c oo

ooo/ " - °
OONO I T , P , 0.,

.ooI ..~
1500 _
0 co

3.0 H
I000 2 ®
LO (-lO0)Srg'/~c .0001 MASS FRACTIONS

500 1.0 / ~
YlI/IIIIII/L/II/I//I//I/I/ /~O 0 <:>V//////I/=~/11111 /1t IIII/I II I/IIIIIII/
FLAME EDGE/
°i .; .~ .~ ~ ~, ., .2 .3 .4 > ° ° ° ' o .z~ . .3i .4
r/x
Fig. 2. The initial condition for flame I-radial profiles of mean and turbulent quantities
at x = 100 m m .

1500 ~ E I ~ R O R BOUN[)(TYP.) • .--, I.O ~

I000 ~" 1.2 ~ ~

500. ' ~/rcoo

i00•
• o...
VISUAL~-O~ ~ • • • = = 'k
50 t 2 / -I -~ . . . . . . -C0

0
0
4 .I ,001

°°°RADIANT HEATFLUX(kW/m" \
o ~"~"~ ~.-~ ' I ~ MASS FRACTION
o ~. • .0001

2 ~><%%
o O' ,, , ~ . . ~ I MREAS
~D!O~NAES.
fl] SyMB0LS
I OOo% " I 20% RA D I A T ~

a °°°°°°° 0011 ~ )0001| ~ I

0100 2dO 500 400 " I00 200 300 400 I00 200 300 400
x(mm)
Fig. 3. Axial variation o f mean and turbulent quantities for flame I.
BUOYANT DIFFUSION FLAMES 269

MEASUREMI£NTS: SYMBO'LS] 1.0 ~' ~ i

PREDICTIONS: | o ~/~c N2
ADIABATIC --- | o
• 20% RADIATION | 05 ~, o ~ ~

a~ ~/fo 1 °°•
t °°
O- ~ * •
I I 0.2
"/,oo

,,oo[
,ooo ,~
~-ERROR BOUND (TYP,) I
1
0.1

1 I'~\
3 : ~ ~ \
o
°

""

,-,oo,~,o,,
i
500
v/,////,/'/,
FLAME EDGE,~"
I,,////
i
I
/
,',,
'
\\
v///~/////,/
\
o
.

o i 2 ~ ~ o :, ~ 3 ~ ~ )00% i 2 3 4

r/x
Fig. 4. Radial profiles o f m e a n and t u r b u l e n t quantities for flame I at x = 215 m m .

, , o~.~_~_~ ;, ~ ~,
1.5 MEASUREMI~NTS: SYMBOLS 1.0 v
"PREDICTIONS: ~/~
ADIABATIC _ __ ° o c ~ ~ ,~ ~
20% RADIATION O.S ="~
,o~.f~,~ o ,,

• I/2_ 0 °°°
0.5- \~ " / ' - g/fc
1,0• ,co •
0•
~°°eoo °
• .~7'/% .o, ~-c°2
0 0.2 • ° • •
2000 • ~• ,
° 18~
T (K) 0.1 ' ~2/~c._~\ ° .oral "- 1 '~
1500 0
3.0
I000 \ / E R R O R BOUND (TYP.) I MASS FRACTIONS
2.0 ¢ ~ < (-IOO)~"ff'/ .00011
o
500 1.0 FLAME EDGE

. . . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . ,~,~
o~ -'7
o, .~. .~ . .5 ;~. o .. . . . . . ,,,,,'%- ..... o ,?;,,,,',"
.~ .~ .~ .4 )ooo,,.
~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.~, .~ .~
~,

r/x
Fig. 5. Radial profiles o f m e a n and t u r b u l e n t quantities for flame [ at x = 300 m m .
270 H-Z. YOU and G. M. FAETH
, , I.O

PREDICTIONS: ~/Uc r- c H4
ADIABATIC 02 •

0.5
Fc .,
.01
0
~.2 ,.~+-T-...Z-~'~io
2000 ~ " c ~
(K) 0.~

0 ~
5,0 i~:
I000
'..0 . 0 0 0 1 ~

500 FLAME EDGE7 ~ I.O MASS FRACTIONS

,/1/ ..... 1//,//,///// J, ~//,H /~//,//Z k/////////////////,
o .; .~' .i .~ °o .I .a .3 .4 00% ., .2 .3 .4
r/x
Fig. 6. The initial condition for flame lI-radial prof'fles of mean and turbulent quantities
at x = 100 mm.

1500
oJ ..__..._o-~- - _ ~c (m/s) 2 4C H
o ~ ~ 1.6 o o / i ~ 0~"~

¥ ~c(K) 1.2
500~ o FLAME RADIUS (mm ~
150' VISUAL --o-- 0.8J" 5,c ,/0c eo = =
PHOTO --o-- ~ ~F ~'

~ 0.2 ~ ~ _
50 (~ 0.1 ~ --
c
0 0 ' ® ~' " • .,--H_

6S:i°°°°<>°°°'
oRADI
o ANT HEATo<>
°°°<><>°°°°°<>FLUX
(kW/m 2) F. - - _!; . - ~ _ _ / / '~ (~
.~o • •

//~SS FRACTION@ r =0

",//MEASUREMENT: SYMBOLS
. PREDICTIONS
ADIABATIC __ __
. 20% RADIATION

100 2()0 300 4 0 0 °'°=Joo 200 300 4 0 0)c 100 200 300 400
x(mm)

Fig. 7. Axial variation of mean and turbulent quantities for flame II.
BUOYANT DIFFUSION FLAMES 271

LO . . . .

PREDICTIONS:
ADIABATIC ~/j'~=2
-.. 20% RADIATION 0"51 ~o ' ....
,c • "q ~.-

oi ° o o oI :
|
" ~-c°2 .~o
•

~ e l b e e e •
el
o~ o2 '/0° " °1 ~c.4" o
200 =°
ot •
0.1 • • • )Ol! ~o
OONO,TY, o 1
°°~ooo
% T(K) 3.oi

iooo ~ooo%% z°m

~ °~o

- (-,oo)w,/~ .c )oJ~ ~,

5oo I.o MASS FRACTIONS

FLAMEEDGE-~
~//// I/I/111 A /I/111/~ VII/I I/I////~

dx
Fig. 8. Radial prof'fles of m e a n and turbulent quantities for flame II at x = 215 m m .

I MEASUREMIL"NTS:~;YMBOL,' 1.0 ,,
PREDICTIONS: N~,
ADIABATIC
, . 0 ~ 20% RADIATION 051 " ~ .....
.It~
i
I
\.~ ,,r.i',,~
\~ '/z[ o~.
°Oo° o
' ~ ://..c%
, o.~ , o I>o ~ : "• e 41~,°|
0
~"" " "•
0.2
•
"'" " r ~''° ~ rC"~'~° ~o HzO.J.

,ooo
I 0.1 *
co:
1500L,//ERROR BOUND(TYp) \\ *. .0(: ,o ~ °o

IOOC ~ 3.0~"
OF ~ t l l ~ ~'
2.01" .OOC
(- I00)u-'~',/ic2
MASS FRACTIONS
500 1.0~"~ , ~ /
FLAME EDGE7 oo o
////,, / f/I/////// /////////// ///////I/I / / / IlIA
%- .; .~ .~ .~ o ., .~ .~ k ,oo~ .; .~ .~ k
r/x
Fig. 9. Radial prordes of mean and turbulent quantities for flame n at x = 300 ram.
272
tration predictions are not large, and will be
discussed later,
In order to relate the data to the appearance of
the flame, the luminous edge is indicated on each
figure. The axial variation of flame width is il-
lustrated in Figs. 3 and 7. In this case, the mean
flame position is indicated by the symbol, while the
range of the flame position is indicated by bars. For
the photographic method, the bars indicate the
95% confidence interval of the measurements. For
the visual method, the bars indicate the observed
maximum and minimum flame positions. In gen-
eral, the visual technique indicates wider flame
boundaries. This behavior is largely a function of
the exposure time and sensitivity of the film; other
settings would vary this trend. On the remaining
figures, the band indicating the edge of the flame
includes the range obtained by both methods. It
can be seen that the outer extremity of the flame
generally extends to the edge of the flow as
indicated by other measured quantities. The visible
portion of the flame also extends well beyond the
maximum temperature positions in both the axial
and radial directions,
The measured temperatures shown in the figures
are not corrected for radiation effects; however,
estimated errors due to radiation are indicated by
error bars at a number of positions. Error bars are
shown for the uncertainty in the emissivity of the
thermocouple after a period of exposure to the
flame. The error limit farthest from the measure-
ments corresponds to a thermocouple emissivity of
unity. In high.temperature regions, the thermo-
couple indication is below the temperature of
the flow, with maximum errors of 180K near
maximum temperature locations. Near the edge of
the flow, the thermocouple indication is higher than
the flow temperature since the sensor intercepts
flame radiation. This effect is smaller, yielding
errors on the order of 10K.
The axial variation ofradiant heat flux from each
flame is illustrated in Figs. 3 and 7. The position of
maximum radiant heat flux generally coincides
with the maximum temperature location along the
flame axis. An estimate of a radiant heat loss of
15%, from flame I, was made by integrating the
measured radiant heat flux along the axis. A similar
computation could not be made for flame II,
H-Z. YOU and G. M. FAETH
however, since the measurements only covered the
lower portion of this flame.
Comparisonof Predictions
and Measurements
Model predictions of mean velocity, mean mixture
fraction, mean temperature, mean species concen-
trations, and Reynolds stress are illustrated in Figs.
2-9, for comparison with the measurements. As
noted earlier, k was set equal to u'2 at the initial
conditions (Figs. 2 and 6), for the remaining figures;
these two quantities have been plotted together so
that they can be compared. Finally, the predicted
values ofg are also illustrated on the plots. It should
be recalled that g was selected to match the mean
mixture fraction and temperature profiles at the
initial condition for Figs. 2 and 6. For the remain-
ing figures, g was computed by the model.
The values of g required to match initial con-
ditions are too high near the edge of the flow, and
somewhat low near the maximum temperature
position, when compared to the usual behavior of
concentration fluctuations [3, 1l]. Errors in con-
centration measurements, particularly near the
edge of the flow, and the fact that uncorrected
temperatures were matched, both contribute to this
behavior. Near the edge of the flow, the actual gas
temperature is lower than indicated and an exces-
sively large value ofgis needed to raise the value of
the predicted mean temperature. Similar factors
affect g at high-temperature locations. This in-
fluences the prediction of mean species concentra-
tions at the initial condition positions illustrated in
Figs. 2 and 6. In regions where g values are not
normal, largely at the centerline and the edge of the
flows, species concentrations exhibit erroneous
trends. This initial condition difficulty, however,
decays rapidly, and concentration profiles, as well
as g itself, behave more reasonably at higher
locations in the flames (cf. Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9). The
extent of the predicted flow field influenced by the
initial condition for g is more clearly seen in the
axial profiles illustrated in Figs. 3 and 7. The effect is
indicated by a jump or oscillation in the laredictions
which extends to 120-150 mm above the exit of
the burner.
BUOYANT DIFFUSION FLAMES
Initial conditions were also prescribed by allow-
ing T a n d f t o vary within experimental uncertainty
while specifying a radial variation of g consistent
with earlier measurements [3, 11]. A better match
of the initial species concentration profiles could be
obtained in this manner. Computations with this
initial condition had only a small effect on predic-
t i o n s a t x = 2 1 5 a n d 3 0 0 m m . This suggests that the
present treatment of the state relation and concen-
tration fluctuations is reasonable.
Another aspect of estimating parameters at the
initial condition involves the Reynolds stress. In the
case where Reynolds stress could be measured at
the initial condition, flame I illustrated in Fig. 2, the
estimated value is substantially greater than the
measurements. However, this measurement was
felt to be of limited reliabilty, due to seeding
difficulties; therefore, the estimation procedure for
the computations was not changed. Nevertheless,
the comparison does suggest that development of
turbulence characteristics was incomplete at the
initial condition locations. Similar to g, Reynolds
stress values appear to be more normal at higher
positions in the flames (Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9).
There is only fair agreement between predicted
and measured quantities along the axis of the
flames (Figs. 3 and 7), particularly in view of the
much better agreement exhibited by this model for
forced flows [1, 2]. There is little to choose between
predictions from the two state relations, although
the model allowing for radiant heat loss does
provide a better estimate of mean temperatures in
the region beyond the maximum temperature
position,
The major discrepancy between predictions and
measurements involves the width of the flow. This
is particularly evident at the highest position (Figs.
5 and 9), where the predicted width is as much as
50~o smaller than the measurements. In contrast,
this model yielded excellent predictions of flow
widths for forced flows [1, 2]. Tamanini [10]
encountered similar problems with his predictions
of buoyant flames, employing the data of
Markstein [13], even though he allowed for effects
of buoyancy on turbulence properties,
The measurements were also compared with
calculations employing set ii of the model con-
stants. These results generally fall in the range of
273
the predictions shown in Figs. 2-9. As noted earlier,
several different approaches were used to estimate
initial conditions, assuming initial profiles of g
based on results for plumes [11], etc. Again, these
calculations gave results similar to those pictured in
Figs. 2-9.
While the agreement between predictions and
measurements may be good enough for many
purposes, further model development is needed.
Models treating the effect of buoyancy on the
production and transport of turbulence quantities
might perform better. However, such improve-
ments will require the systematic determination of a
number of new empirical parameters. Work along
these lines [10] has not yet achieved significantly
better results than those illustrated here.
Comparison of the present limiting calculations,
including and neglecting radiant heat losses, in-
dicates that flame radiation has a significant in-
fluence on flame structure for present test con-
ditions. This suggests that adopting recent methods
for treating radiation in flames [16, 20] might
improve predictions. Certainly, the values of the
model constants could be optimized to improve the
agreement between predictions and measurements,
at least for present test conditions. The general
validity of such an approach, however, would be
questionable.
Experimental difficulties and the test conditions
themselves could also be factors in the discrepan-
des between predictions and measurements. It is
very difficult to completely eliminate room disturb-
ances which deflect the flow. The low momentum of
these flows and the absence of a surface to help
stabilize large-scale disturbances magnify the prob-
lem. Such disturbances provide an obvious mecha-
nism for unusually wide profiles of flow quantities.
The local Reynolds number of the present test
flames were also relatively low. Local Reynolds
number values based on the average vertical
velocity and the flow displacement diameter,
2u al'a/V ~, were in the range 1750-8080 (cf. Table 1).
Furthermore, the appearance of flame II indicated
patches of laminar flow extending some distance
above the burner exit. In contrast, the turbulence
model was developed, and largely calibrated, for
high Reynolds number flows. In particular, earlier
evaluation of the present model involved local
274
Reynolds numbers, defined in the same manner as
in Table 1, greater than 10,000 11, 2]. Therefore,
some of the present discrepancy may be due to
transition effects and poorly developed turbulence,
Our inability to measure completely all proper-
ties required to specify the initial condition for the
computations also leaves uncertainties in the com-
parison of predictions and measurements. It ap-
pears that these effects were limited to the lower
portions of the flow, but the present results do not
provide a thorough indication of the extent to
which errors in initial conditions influenced the
computations,
Finally, the measuring techniques also introduce
uncertainties which are difficult to evaluate quanti-
tatively. Thermocouple errors, seeding difficulties,
and the mixing of time and Favre averages have
already been discussed. These problems did not
have a large influence on earlier results for forced
flows, initial conditions for which could be specified
at the burner tube exit [1, 2]; however, in the
present case, measured mean temperatures, veloci-
ties, and compositions (mixture fraction) were
employed to fix initial conditions for the compu-
tations, and the effect should be larger,
In view of these potential error sources and the
limitations of the present model, the comparison
between predictions and measurements is en-
couraging. Work is continuing in this laboratory to
expand the data base and to reduce experimental
uncertainties so that a more reliable assessment of
flow models for buoyant flames can be provided.
CONCLUSIONS
The major conclusions of the study are as follows:
1. The theory provides a reasonable indication
of the trends of flow quantities; however, the
comparison between predictions and meas-
urements shows greater errors than those
observed for forced combusting flows using
the same model [1, 2].
2. The greatest discrepancy between predic-
tions and measurements involwd the width
of the flow, which was theoretically under-
estimated by as much as 50% in the upper
portions of the flames. Room disturbances
H-Z. YOU and G. M. FAETH
are felt to be mainly responsible for this
problem. Effects of low Reynolds numbers,
the influence of buoyancy on turbulence
properties, uncertainties in estimating initial
conditions, and experimental uncertainties
(seeding, thermocouple radiation, varying
nature of property averaging, etc.) are also
contributing factors.
3. Allowing for radiative heat losses resulted in
some improvement of the predictions, but the
effect was not large. Similarly, use of two
different sets of model constants currently
employed by a number of investigtors (Table
2) did not significantly affect the overall
comparison between predictions and
measurements.
4. The outer extremity of flame luminosity
generally extended to the edge of the flow as
indicated by other measured properties.
Luminous flame was observed well beyond
the locationofthemaximummeantempera-
ture in both the axial and radial directions.
The maximum radiative heat flux from the
flame, in the radial direction, generally cor-
responded to the location of the maximum
mean temperature along the flame axis.
This research was supported by the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Bureau of
Standards, Grant No. 7-9020, under the technical
managementof Dr. Howard Baum of the Center for
Fire Research.
NOMENCLATURE
a acceleration of gravity
Ci constants in turbulence model
Cp specific heat at constant pressure
d burner exit diameter
f mixture fraction
g square of mixture fraction fluctuations
k kinetic energy of turbulence
L flame height
m mass flow rate
M flow momentum
Q burner heat release rate
r radial distance
BUOYANT D I F F U S I O N FLAMES 275

ra displacement radius of flow (fn/n~u~) 1/2 6. Becker, H. A., and Yamazaki, S., Sixteenth Sympo-
T temperature sium (International) on Combustion, The Combus-
tion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1977, pp. 681-691.
u axial velocity 7. McCaffrey, B. J., Purley Buoyant Diffusion Flames,
Ua average axial velocity of flow ( M / m ) NBSlR 79-1910, 1979.
v radial velocity 8. Cox, C., and Chitty, R., Combust. Flame 39:191-
V° weighted radial velocity [Eq. (5)] 209 (1980).
x axial distance 9. Pergament, H. S., and Fishburne, E. S., Combust.
Sci. Technol. 18:127-137 (1978).
Yi mass fraction of species i 10. Tamanini, F., Combust. Flame 30:85-101 (1977).
13 coefficient of thermal expansion 11. Tamanini, F., Z Heat Transfer 100:659-664 (1978).
6 radial distance from centerline to point where 12. Kent, J. H., and Bilger, R. W., Fourteenth Sympo-
/~=0.01 Uc slum (International) on Combustion, The Combus-
dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy tion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1973, pp. 615-625.
/~t effective turbulent viscosity 13. Markstein, G. H., Sixteenth Symposium (Interna-
tional) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute,
v kinematic viscosity Pittsburgh, 1977, pp. 1407-1419.
p density 14. You, H-Z., and Faeth, G. M., An Investigation of
ai turbulent Prandtl/Schmidt number Fire Impingement on a Horizontal Ceiling, Depart-
q~ generic p r o p e r t y ment of Mechanical Engineering, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA, 1979.
15. You, H-Z., and Faeth, G. M., Fire and Materials
Superscripts 3:140-147 (1979).
16. Gosman, A. D., Lockwood, F. C., and Syed, S. A.,
(-) time-averaged quantity Sixteenth Symposium (International) on Combus-
()' fluctuating quantity tion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1977,
(u) effective mixing-cup value for flow pp. 1543-1555.
17. Gordon, S., and McBride, B. J., Computer Program
for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium
Subscripts Compositions, Rocket Performance, Incident and
Reflected Shocks, and Chapman-Jouget Detona-
tions, NASA SP-273, 1971.
c centerline quantity 18. Mitchell, R. E., Sarofim, A. F., and Clomberg, L.
F fuel A., Combust. Flame 37:201-206 (1980).
0 burner exit condition 19. Shearer, A. J., Evaluation of a Locally Homogeneous
ambient condition Flow Model of Spray Evaporation, Ph.D. Thesis, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA,
1979.
20. Lockwood, F. C., and Syed, S. A., Combust. Sci.
REFERENCES Teehnol. 19:129-140 (1979).
21. Patankar, S. W., and Spalding, D. B., Heat andMass
1. Shearer, A. J., Tamura, H., and Faeth, G. M,, J. En- Transfer in Boundary Layers, 2nd Ed., Intertext
ergy 3:271-278 (1979). Book, London, 1970.
2. Mao, C-P., Szekely, G. A., Jr., and Faeth, G. M., Z 22. Bilger, R. W., Progress in Astronautics and Aero-
Energy 4:78-87 (1980). nautics 53:49-69 (1977).
3. Lockwood, F. C., and Naguib, A. S., Combust. Flame
24:109-124 (1975).
4. Becker, H. A., and Liang, D., Combust. Flame 32:
115-137 (1978).
5. Becker, H. A., and Yamazaki, S., Combust. Flame
33:123-149 (1978). Received 13 August 1980; revised 21 January 1981