Combustion and Flame: T.L. Howarth, M.A. Picciani, E.S. Richardson, M.S. Day, A.J. Aspden
Combustion and Flame: T.L. Howarth, M.A. Picciani, E.S. Richardson, M.S. Day, A.J. Aspden
Keywords: A high-pressure hydrogen micromix combustor has been investigated using direct numerical simulation with
Direct numerical simulation detailed chemistry to examine the flame structure and stabilisation mechanism. The configuration of the
Hydrogen combustor was based on the design by Schefer et al. [1], using numerical periodicity to mimic a large square
Flame structure
array. A precursor simulation of an opposed jet-in-crossflow was first conducted to generate appropriate
Flame stabilisation
partially-premixed inflow boundary conditions for the subsequent reacting simulation. The resulting flame
Micromix combustor
can be described as an predominantly-lean inhomogeneously-premixed lifted jet flame. Five main zones
were identified: a jet mixing region, a core flame, a peripheral flame, a recirculation zone, and combustion
products. The core flame, situated over the jet mixing region, was found to burn as a thin reaction front,
responsible for over 85% of the total fuel consumption. The peripheral flame shrouded the core flame, had
low mean flow with high turbulence, and burned at very lean conditions (in the distributed burning regime).
It was shown that turbulent premixed flame propagation was an order-of-magnitude too slow to stabilise the
flame at these conditions. Stabilisation was identified to be due to ignition events resulting from turbulent
mixing of fuel from the jet into mean recirculation of very lean hot products. Ignition events were found to
correlate with shear-driven Kelvin–Helmholtz vortices, and increased in likelihood with streamwise distance.
At the flame base, isolated events were observed, which developed into rapidly burning flame kernels that
were blown downstream. Further downstream, near-simultaneous spatially-distributed ignition events were
observed, which appeared more like ignition sheets. The paper concludes with a broader discussion that
considers generalising from the conditions considered here.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (T.L. Howarth).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2024.113504
Received 9 September 2023; Received in revised form 2 May 2024; Accepted 7 May 2024
Available online 22 May 2024
0010-2180/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Combustion Institute. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
𝜙2 𝑊 c 𝑇i 𝑌o,c
2 𝐴2
c
𝐽= , (2)
𝑁 2 𝑊 i 𝑇c 𝑠2 𝑌f,i2 𝐴2i
2
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
observed in the prescribed micromix combustor including both stable Domain size 7 mm × 7 mm × 7 mm
Resolution (base) 256 × 256 × 256
and unstable lifted flames, flames attached to the lip, blow-off and
𝛥𝑥 (base) 27.3 μm
flashback. Flashback only occurred in low speed, higher equivalence Resolution (effective) 1024 × 1024 × 1024
ratio environments which are rarely used in micromix combustors. 𝛥𝑥 (finest) 6.84 μm
Blow-off occurs at very lean equivalence ratios, with this limit increas- Ambient pressure 24 atm
ing with air crossflow velocity. Mixedness will have a strong effect Crossflow velocity 𝑢̄ c 100 m/s
Injector velocity 𝑢̄ i 1360 m/s
on flame structure, stability and whether the flame becomes attached,
Crossflow temperature 𝑇c 750 K
all of which is poorly understood. Flame stabilisation in micromix Injector temperature 𝑇i 550 K
combustors has been attributed to ‘flame stabilising vortices’ (e.g. [3]), Crossflow density 𝜌c 11.27 kg/m3
although the precise mechanism by which this enables stabilisation has Injector density 𝜌i 1.04 kg/m3
not yet been investigated, nor has the combustion regime that lifted Crossflow rms velocity fluctuation 𝑢′c 3 m/s
Injector rms velocity fluctuation 𝑢′i 40 m/s
micromix flames burn in been explored. Momentum flux ratio 𝐽 = 𝜌i 𝑢2i ∕𝜌c 𝑢2c 17.2
Injector Reynolds number Rei = 𝑢i 𝑑i ∕𝜈i 48 021
3. Direct numerical simulation configuration
3
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
Table 2
Parameters for the combusting simulation.
Quantity Value
Domain size 14 mm × 14 mm × 84 mm
Resolution (base) 256 × 256 × 1536
𝛥𝑥 (base) 54.7 μm
Resolution (effective) 2048 × 2048 × 12288
𝛥𝑥 (finest, at flame) 6.84 μm
𝛥𝑥 (inflow) 27.3 μm
Jet diameter 𝑑j 7 mm
Mean inflow velocity 𝑢̄ j 111 m/s
Inflow r.m.s. velocity fluctuation 𝑢′ 26.1 m/s
Inflow integral length scale 𝓁 1.0 mm
Inflow turbulent energy dissipation rate 𝜖 = 𝑢′3 ∕𝓁 1.79 × 107 m2 /s3
Mean inflow viscosity 𝜈̄ 3.33 × 10−5 m2 /s
Inflow Kolmogorov length scale 𝜂 = (𝜈̄ 3 ∕𝜖)1∕4 6.77 μm
Effective mean inflow viscosity 𝜈̄𝑒 5.90 × 10−5 m2 /s
Effective inflow Kolmogorov length scale 𝜂𝑒 = (𝜈̄𝑒3 ∕𝜖)1∕4 10.4 μm
Jet Reynolds number Rej = 𝑢̄ j 𝑑j ∕𝜈̄ 23 200
Inflow turbulent Reynolds number Ret = 𝑢′ 𝓁∕𝜈̄ 781
Mean inflow equivalence ratio 𝜙j 0.46
Mean inflow temperature 𝑇j 732 K
Mean thermal thickness 𝓁l (𝜙j , 𝑇j , 𝑝) 17.4 μm
Flame resolution 𝓁l ∕𝛥𝑥 2.54
4
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
⟨ ⟩
Fig. 4. 𝑌h2 f slices through L: 𝑥∕𝑑j = 0 and 𝑦∕𝑑j = 0 and R: 𝑧∕𝑑j = 0, 1, 2, 3. The black
Fig. 3. ⟨𝑇 ⟩ slices through L: 𝑥∕𝑑j = 0 and 𝑦∕𝑑j = 0 and R: 𝑧∕𝑑j = 0, 1, 2, 3. The scale on and white circle on the 𝑧∕𝑑j = 0 image illustrates the airport. Notice the approximate
the left is streamwise distance in jet diameters. At heights below the flame stabilisation kidney shape taken by the hydrogen entering the domain due to the upstream jet in
height, outside the jet, the temperature of the fluid is consistently around 1200 K, with crossflow, which interact and rotate into circular profiles in the opposite axis, leading to
pockets of even hotter fluid near the wall closer to 1400 K. (For interpretation of the the asymmetry in the flame which can be seen in the temperature profile in Fig. 3. (For
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
this article.) to the web version of this article.)
and 𝑦 directions (the top third of the domain has been cropped) in Further planar averaging results in one-dimensional profiles as a
Figs. 3–5, respectively, along with horizontal slices at four streamwise function of streamwise distance, i.e.
locations. Colours are normalised by the adiabatic flame temperature 𝐿𝑦 𝐿𝑥
1
̂ =
𝑞(𝑧) ⟨𝑞⟩ (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) d𝑥 d𝑦, (4)
of the mean inflow condition (𝜙 = 0.46, 𝑇𝑢 = 732 K, 𝑝 = 24 atm), the 𝐿𝑥 𝐿𝑦 ∫0 ∫0
stoichiometric mass fraction of hydrogen in air, and the velocity of the
with the natural Favre average 𝑞(𝑧)
̌ = 𝜌̂𝑞∕𝜌.̂
jet, allowing for negative velocities. In this context, the normalisation
Normalised profiles of 𝑇̂ and 𝑌̌oh are given in Fig. 6. Between the
relates to the value at the red colour; the extension up to pink and temperature and OH profile, it can be concluded that the majority of
white is 50% more than the normalisation value. The flame base can the flame sits 3–4.5 𝑑j (21–30.5 mm) above the jet inflow. Defining a
be seen to be lifted at a height approximately 3.5 𝑑j (≈ 25 mm) from the flame brush thickness as
bottom, with a higher temperature observed in the core of the flame. 𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇j
The flame is visibly asymmetric; there is a degree of asymmetry in each 𝐿fb = , (5)
max{d𝑇̂ ∕d𝑧}
panel, which is likely due to the short temporal averaging window, but
more importantly, the slices through 𝑥 = 0 and 𝑦 = 0 are different gives an approximate thickness of 𝐿fb = 1.2 cm (1.7 𝑑j ).
Despite the jet not being perfectly axisymmetric, for modelling and
from each other. This can also be seen in the slices taken through
averaging purposes, azimuthal averaging can also be performed in
the fuel mass fraction in Fig. 4. This asymmetry is inherently due to
terms of the radius 𝑟 and streamwise distance 𝑧
the inflow condition; the counter-rotating vortex pair originating from
the upstream JICF results in kidney-shaped structures in temperature, ⎧ 2𝜋
⎪ 1 ⟨𝑞⟩ (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧) d𝜃 for 𝑟 ≤ 𝐿𝑥 ∕2,
species and velocity (see 𝑧 = 0 slices in the bottom right of Figs. 3–5). ⎪ 2𝜋 0
∫
𝑞(𝑟, 𝑧) = ⎨∑ 3 𝛽𝑛 (6)
After entering the domain, the two pairs of vortices propagate towards ⎪ 1
⟨𝑞⟩ (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧) d𝜃 otherwise.
the 𝑥 = 0 plane, interact with each other, and then propagate away ⎪𝑛=0 𝛽𝑛 − 𝛼𝑛 ∫𝛼𝑛
⎩
from the 𝑦 = 0 plane. This results in larger mass fractions of fuel
and velocities visible in the slices through the 𝑥 planes, and therefore where
( ) ( )
the asymmetry observed. The interaction of the crossflow with the jet 𝑛𝜋 𝐿𝑥 (𝑛 + 1)𝜋 𝐿𝑥
𝛼𝑛 = + cos−1 , 𝛽𝑛 = − cos−1 (7)
can be seen in the 𝑧 = 0 slices in Fig. 5, where the fluid on the 2 2𝑟 2 2𝑟
windward side has been accelerated (the white crescent), and surrounds after converting from Cartesian to cylindrical coordinates, with corre-
slower-moving fluid on the leeward side of the JICF (the yellow/orange ̃ 𝑧) = 𝜌𝑞∕𝜌. Fig. 7 shows the profiles of 𝑇 , 𝑌̃h2
sponding Favre average 𝑞(𝑟,
mushroom-like structure). and 𝑢̃ 𝑧 at streamwise locations from 𝑧 = 0 to 5 𝑑j ; the black vertical line
5
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
Fig. 5. ⟨𝑢𝑧 ⟩f slices through L: 𝑥∕𝑑j = 0 and 𝑦∕𝑑j = 0 and R: 𝑧∕𝑑j = 0, 1, 2, 3. Upon entry
into the domain, the wake vortices are still clear through the mushroom-shaped profile
leading from the wall of the air port. (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 6. Integrated average profiles of normalised temperature and 𝑌oh . These profiles 4.2. Instantaneous flame structure
suggest the flame sits at a height of between 20 and 36 mm.
6
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
⎧ 𝑌p 𝑍st
⎪ where 𝑍 ≤ 𝑍st ,
⎪ 𝑍(𝑌o,cf [1 − 𝑍st ] + 𝑍st )
𝑐p = ⎨ (9)
⎪ 𝑌p (1 − 𝑍st )
otherwise,
⎪ (1 − 𝑍)(𝑌o,cf [1 − 𝑍st ] + 𝑍st )
⎩
where the mixture fraction 𝑍 is given by
𝑠𝑌f − 𝑌o + 𝑌o,cf
𝑍= , (10)
𝑠 + 𝑌o,cf
with 𝑠 = 8 the stoichiometric ratio, and 𝑌o,cf = 0.232 the oxygen mass
fraction in the crossflow.
An 𝑥 and 𝑦 slice of the fuel- and product-based progress variable
are given in Fig. 11. The two progress variables are naturally similar,
and both identify a thin flame in the middle of the domain, as well as
what appears to be a distributed flame in the periphery (there is a broad
spatial region with intermediate values of progress). Both variables also
identify the recirculation region as products (hot/wet and absent of
fuel). It is worth noting that near the jet inlet, there is a region of Fig. 10. Snapshots of 𝑌ho2 in the L: 𝑥∕𝑑j = 0 and 𝑦∕𝑑j = 0 planes, and R: 𝑧 slices at
near-pure air surrounding the fuel, which is identified differently by the 𝑧∕𝑑j = 0, 1, 2, 3. The black and white circle on the 𝑧∕𝑑j = 0 image illustrates the airport.
two progress variables; the fuel-based progress variable identifies this
region as products (no fuel) and the products-based progress variable
identifies it as reactants (cold/dry).
7
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
Fig. 11. A comparison between the fuel-based and products-based progress variables
(L: 𝑐f , R: 𝑐p ). There are differences between the two where pure air is present, and
identifies both a very thin core flame and significant turbulent mixing on the periphery.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
8
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
Fig. 14. PDFs of local equivalence ratio 𝜙 conditioned on each zone in the non-reacting Fig. 15. JPDFs of temperature and local equivalence ratio in the core (top) and
(top) and reacting (bottom) regions. peripheral (bottom) flame. Magenta lines are profiles from 1D Cantera simulations
with equivalence ratios from 0.3–1.2 in the case of the core flame, and 0.2–0.36 in the
peripheral flame. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
ratio; consequently, the 𝜙 distribution doubly-conditioned on zone and
𝑐f < 0.01 is also shown in Fig. 14. This suggests that the actual range of
unburned equivalence ratios in the core flame is around 0.4–1.2, in an
as lower injector Reynolds number of momentum flux ratios, where
approximately Gaussian distribution centred at 𝜙 ≈ 0.8. On the other
insufficient mixing may occur.
hand, the equivalence ratio distribution in the peripheral flame is far
narrower ranging from approximately 0.18–0.3, with the distribution
4.2.2. Turbulent burning regimes
centred around 𝜙 ≈ 0.22.
Turbulence-flame interactions in the core and peripheral flames are
The variation in equivalence ratio through the flame can be exam-
very different. The core flame appears as a distinct, if corrugated, flame
ined in more detail in a joint probability distribution function (JPDF)
surface, with burning cells characteristic of low Lewis number effects.
of temperature and local equivalence ratio, shown in Fig. 15. One-
On the other hand, the peripheral flame is spatially distributed over a
dimensional premixed flame profiles (from Cantera) are superimposed
large region with no clear flame surface.
on the JPDF at equivalence ratios 0.3–1.2 (in 𝜙 increments of 0.2) and Based on an equivalence ratio distribution, and unburned tempera-
unburned temperature of 750 K, which show the decrease in equiva- ture of 750 K (which appears to be the case for almost all the flamelets
lence ratio due to preferential diffusion effects. The decrease in equiv- observed), and a pressure of 24 atm, maximum and minimum values of
alence ratio in the JPDF is more pronounced than the one-dimensional characteristic flame speed and thickness can be obtained from Cantera.
profiles, which may be due to differential/preferential diffusion later- Assuming a range of turbulent characteristics of 𝑢′ = 5–20 m/s (𝑢′ =
ally due to the inhomogeneously-premixed reactants. The correspond- 26 m∕s at the inflow and decays to approximately 7 m∕s along the
ing JPDF of 𝑇 and 𝜙 in the peripheral flame is given in Fig. 15, with centreline) and 𝓁 = 1–2 mm, regions of the premixed turbulent flame
magenta lines from 1D Cantera simulations at equivalence ratios 0.2 regime diagram can be highlighted using these values. From the PDFs,
and 0.36 at an unburned temperature of 750 K. a range of 0.4 < 𝜙 < 1.2 is observed in the core flame, and 0.18 <
In summary, there is a broad range of equivalence ratios (i.e. not 𝜙 < 0.3 in the peripheral flame; corresponding indicative regions are
fully-premixed) but those equivalence ratios are almost-everywhere be- shown in Fig. 16. These two regions imply Karlovitz number ranges
low unity (i.e. not non-premixed); therefore, this flame can be classified of 0.05 < Ka < 22 for the core flame and 350 < Ka < 66, 000 for
as burning in an ‘essentially-lean inhomogeneously-premixed’ mode. the peripheral flame. This would place the core flame either in the
At the operating conditions considered, there is a low probability of thin reaction zone or corrugated/wrinkled flame regime, whereas the
finding diffusion flamelets; this may differ at other conditions, such peripheral flame would be in the distributed burning regime. The large
9
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
𝐴p 𝑠max
𝑢j < . (14)
𝐴j (1 − 2𝐼)
In the present setup, the area ratio 𝐴p ∕𝐴j = 5.09, the flame speed
of a stoichiometric hydrogen flame with unburned temperature 750 K
and pressure 24 atm is 8.5 m/s. While Lewis number effects are present
(as seen in the variation of equivalence ratio through the flame),
Fig. 16. Turbulent premixed flame regime diagram, with the core and peripheral flame
thermodiffusive effects at these conditions are not expected to accel-
shown by the red and blue blocks respectively. The black arrow indicates the effect of
increasing pressure. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
erate the flame, primarily due to the stabilising effect of the high
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) unburned temperature of the reactants (see [30,32,48]). Evaluation of
the turbulent intensity suggests a maximum value of 22% reached near
the inflow before decaying to approximately 10% further downstream.
Combining all of these conservative estimates, the upper bound on
range of burning regimes is only present due to the high pressure of
the jet velocity is approximately 77 m/s. This would require the bulk
the system; if an identical assessment were performed at atmospheric
flow have reached the theoretical minimum, with the highest feasible
pressure, there would be less of a distinction between the regimes,
turbulent intensity, and the flame burning everywhere at the highest
as indicated by the pale regions in Fig. 16. In the case of the core
feasible speed, but still results in a mean inflow velocity that is 30%
flame, the Karlovitz number is mostly unchanged by an increase in
smaller than the actual value.
pressure because the flame speed increases and thickness decreases For completeness, the actual mean local flame speed in the core
along an approximately-constant Karlovitz line; Damköhler number, on flame region can be calculated as follows. Given a flame surface 𝛤 ,
the other hand, increases significantly with increasing pressure. The with area 𝐴𝛤 , a mean local flame speed can be determined by
lower value of 𝓁∕𝓁f in the core flame also indicates significantly less
−1
resolution would be required to resolve the flame. This is not the case 𝑠= 𝜌𝜔̇ d𝛺, (15)
(𝜌𝑌h2 )j 𝐴𝛤 ∫𝛺 h2
in the peripheral flame, where the flame speed is substantially reduced
at increased pressure at lean conditions, which moves the flame from where (𝜌𝑌h2 )j is the mean density-weighted fuel mass fraction at the
being moderately-turbulent to the distributed regime at high pressure. inflow. Furthermore, the mean local flame speed in the core flame of
interest can be found as
5. Flame stabilisation mechanism −1
𝑠𝑐 = 𝜌𝜔̇ h2 d𝛺𝑐 , (16)
(𝜌𝑌h2 )j 𝐴𝛤 ,𝑐 ∫𝛺𝑐
There are several mechanisms by which a flame can stabilise, de- where 𝛺𝑐 denotes the core zone defined in Section 4.2 and 𝐴𝛤 ,𝑐 denotes
pending on the thermochemical composition and mixedness of the flow. the area of the instantaneous isosurface inside the core zone.
The present flame is inhomogeneously premixed with elevated reactant An isosurface can be defined using the progress variable constructed
temperature, situated in a recirculatory flow. Therefore, it may stabilise in Section 4.2, with 𝑐f = 0.9; the fuel-based progress variable and
through purely deflagrative flame propagation, autoignition, or in some particular value of 0.9 was chosen based on obtaining accurate mean
mixed mode whereby deflagrative or ignitive burning is accelerated by local flame speeds in lean hydrogen flames (see [30,49]). Calculating
both pre-ignition reactions and pre-mixing with combustion products. a mean local flame speed based using this surface and then ensemble
averaging over time gives a value of 𝑠𝑐 = 1.75 m/s (compare this
Stabilisation through deflagrative flame propagation is reliant on diffu-
with the value of 8.5 m/s used above for 𝑠max ). Using the relation
sive and turbulent transport from the burned to unburned side of the
above, and assuming a turbulent intensity of 10%, the maximum jet
flame. On the other hand, autoignition allows isolated flame kernels to
velocity allowing for stabilisation through flame propagation would
develop ahead of the flame base.
only be 11.3 m/s (an order-of-magnitude lower than the actual value).
Comparing the integral of fuel consumption in the core region to the
5.1. Flame propagation overall fuel consumption also suggests that 86.7% of fuel consumption
occurs in the core.
The feasibility of flame stabilisation by purely deflagrative turbulent In summary, the flame cannot be stabilised by turbulent premixed
flame propagation is assessed by comparing relevant flow and flame flame propagation at these conditions, despite the vast majority of the
speeds. First, a comparison is made between the turbulent flame speed fuel being consumed by deflagration in the core flame zone.
and jet velocity to establish the feasibility of flame stabilisation by
flame propagation; specifically, by estimating the upper bound on the 5.2. Ignition events
jet inlet velocity that can be stabilised by turbulent flame propagation
To examine the evolution of ignition events, a line of sight diagnos-
without blowing off. Following [47], in the large-scale turbulence
tic has been constructed, taking a one-dimensional integral of a reaction
limit (i.e. giving the highest feasible enhancement of surface area), an
term, i.e.
estimate for turbulent flame speed can be written as
𝐿𝑖
1
𝑠𝑇 = 𝑠 + 2𝑢′ , (12) 𝜔̇ los = 𝜔̇ 𝑘 d𝑥𝑖 , (17)
𝐿𝑖 ∫ 0
10
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
Since flame ignition and stabilisation appears to be driven by the The height 𝑧𝑐 is defined to be the point where 𝑅2 (𝑧) = 𝑅3 (𝑧), and the
mixing of fuel from the jet with recirculated heat, this section considers radius definitions are given by:
the mechanisms by which mixing occurs. Since the combustor is lean 𝑅1 (𝑧) = 𝑟(𝑌h2 = 0.0133), (18)
everywhere, there is an abundance of oxygen, and so any ignition
events and hence flame stabilisation point is determined by the mixing 𝑅2 (𝑧) = 𝑟(𝑌h2 = 0.003), (19)
of fuel and heat. Based on azimuthally and temporally averaged data, 𝑅3 (𝑧) = 𝑟(𝑇 = 850𝐾), (20)
different mixing zones can be classified as follows:
𝑅4 (𝑧) = 𝑟(𝑇 = 1150𝐾). (21)
• F - Unburned fuel–air mixture with 𝑌h2 > 0.0133.
The mass fractions are associated with the mean equivalence ratio and
Defined by 0 < 𝑟 < 𝑅1 (𝑧).
flammability limit of hydrogen, which also dictates the lower temper-
• O - Essentially pure air which acts as a non-reactive buffer be-
ature limit. The upper limit of the temperature is set to reflect the
tween the regions with fuel and hot recirculating fluid.
temperature of the recirculation zone. Fig. 19 shows the partitioning
Defined by 𝑅2 (𝑧) < 𝑟 < 𝑅3 (𝑧) and 𝑧 < 𝑧𝑐 . of the domain after applying the conditioning.
• 𝑇 - Hot recirculating products from the flame above, mostly For each zone 𝛺𝑖 , the integrated mass , species and heat fluxes
comprised of steam and air. are given by
Defined by 𝑟 > 𝑅4 (𝑧). 𝑅r,𝑖
• FO - Mixing region between the inner fuel/air region (F) and pure 𝛺𝑖 (𝑧) = 𝜌𝑢𝑧 𝑓 (𝑟) d𝑟, (22)
∫𝑅l,𝑖
air region (O).
Defined by 𝑅1 (𝑧) < 𝑟 < 𝑅2 (𝑧) (where 𝑧 < 𝑧𝑐 ), and by 𝑅1 (𝑧) < 𝑟 < 𝑅r,𝑖
𝛺𝑖 (𝑧) = 𝜌𝑌h2 𝑢𝑧 𝑓 (𝑟) d𝑟, (23)
𝑅3 (𝑧) (where 𝑧 > 𝑧𝑐 ). ∫𝑅l,𝑖
11
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
𝑅
where [𝑞(𝑟)]𝑅2 = 𝑞(𝑅2 ) − 𝑞(𝑅1 ) is used to denote the difference in
1
horizontal fluxes in and out of the region.
The equations can be decomposed further by specifying the normal
as
[ ] [ ]
𝑛 ±∇𝑐 ±1 𝜕𝑟 𝑐
𝐧= 𝑟 = = √ , (29)
𝑛𝑧 |∇𝑐| 2
(𝜕𝑟 𝑐) + (𝜕𝑧 𝑐)2 𝜕 𝑧𝑐
where 𝑐 is the field chosen to define the boundary, either 𝑌h2 or 𝑇 in this
particular case; the sign of the normal is chosen such that the direction
is always to the right (i.e. 𝑛𝑟 ≥ 0). The resulting decomposition can be
written as
[ ]𝑅r,𝑖
d
= (𝜌̄𝑢̃ 𝑧 )𝑛𝑧 + (𝜌̄𝑢̃ 𝑟 )𝑛𝑟 , (30)
d𝑧 𝛺𝑖 𝑅l,𝑖
[( ) ( ) ]𝑅r,𝑖
d
= 𝜌̄𝑌̃h2 𝑢̃ 𝑧 + 𝜌̄𝑌̃ ′′ ′′ ̃ ̃ ′′ ′′
h2 𝑢𝑧 𝑛𝑧 + 𝜌̄𝑌h2 𝑢̃ 𝑟 + 𝜌̄𝑌h2 𝑢𝑟 𝑛𝑟 𝑅 , (31)
d𝑧 𝛺𝑖 l,𝑖
[( ) ( ) ]𝑅r,𝑖
d
= 𝑇̄ 𝑢̄ 𝑧 + 𝑇 ′ 𝑢′𝑧 𝑛𝑧 + 𝑇̄ 𝑢̄ 𝑟 + 𝑇 ′ 𝑢′𝑟 𝑛𝑟 . (32)
d𝑧 𝛺𝑖 𝑅l,𝑖
where 𝑅r,𝑖 and 𝑅l,𝑖 are the radii associated with the left and right 6. Discussion and conclusions
boundaries of zone 𝛺𝑖 , respectively, and the function 𝑓 (𝑟) is given by
A high-pressure hydrogen micromix combustor has been investi-
⎧ 𝐿𝑥
⎪2𝜋𝑟 if 𝑟 < , gated using three-dimensional DNS with detailed chemistry to examine
𝑓 (𝑟) = ⎨ ( ) 2 (25)
𝐿𝑥 the flame structure and stabilisation mechanism. The combustor ge-
⎪2𝜋𝑟 − 8𝑟 cos−1 otherwise.
⎩ 2𝑟 ometry follows the archetypal NASA micromix design from Schefer
By partitioning the domain in this way, mass, species and heat et al. [1], and the high-pressure and temperature operating condi-
exchange between each zone can be evaluated; integrated fluxes are tions are relevant to aerospace applications. The flame stabilisation
presented in Fig. 20. In the fuel region (F), the mass and heat flux process at these conditions is summarised in Section 6.1, and shown
stay constant, while the hydrogen flux decreases as it moves to the FO schematically in Fig. 23. A more general discussion of the main features
region. In the FO region, the mass and heat flux again are relatively of micromix flame stabilisation is given in Section 6.2, along with
constant, while the hydrogen flux increases up to 𝑧𝑐 and remains implications for design across different operating conditions.
12
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
13
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
Fig. 21. Hydrogen flux across F/FO and FO/FOT boundary. Fig. 22. Heat flux across OT/T and FOT/OT boundary.
too fast for flame propagation to be able to stabilise the flame at turbulent mixing in the radial direction (𝜌̄𝑌̃ ′′ ′′
h2 𝑢𝑟 𝑛𝑟 ; Fig. 21). On the other
these conditions. The flame speed computed is comparable to the one- hand, the transport of heat was shown to be driven by the mean flow
dimensional flame speed, implying that, although the core flame is not (𝑇̄ 𝑢;
̄ Fig. 22) from the recirculation to the ignition zone. Hypothetically,
stabilising, it is deflagrative (rather than ignitive) in nature. a one-dimensional model could be formulated to predict the structure of
The autoignition delay time of the inlet condition is orders-of- this zonal arrangement using appropriate models for turbulent mixing
magnitude too large to allow for the incoming mixture to autoignite of fuel inside the jet and entrainment of hot fluid, and will be the
with the prescribed domain size and inlet speed. However, sporadic subject of future work.
ignition kernels are observed ahead of the flame base and appear An idealised schematic (assuming symmetry across the left bound-
to be correlated with shear-driven Kelvin-Helmoltz vortices. By us- ary) of the combustor is shown in Fig. 23.
ing a line-of-sight diagnostic (Fig. 17), infrequent and isolated events
are observed, which grow into rapidly-burning flame kernels. Fur- 6.2. Principles for micromix combustor design
ther downstream, as the fuel spreads into the recirculation region,
the likelihood of ignition increased, and it was possible to observe 6.2.1. Present configuration
near-simultaneous ignition events more spatially distributed, which In the specific configuration presented here, the momentum flux
appeared more like an ignition sheet (Fig. 18). These sheets are situated ratio 𝐽 is a critically-important factor affecting lift-off height and
between the peripheral flame and core flame and result from the general flame dynamics. Ignoring direct interaction with other fuel
entrainment of the distributed reactions into the jet. injectors, increasing the value of 𝐽 will naturally increase the size of
Since there is an abundance of oxygen everywhere (due to the the air annulus and affect the point at which fuel encounters necessary
lean global equivalence ratio), the formation of ignition spots relies heat to ignite. It will also, as discussed in Section 2, increase the degree
on mixing fuel from the main jet with heat from the recirculation of mixing occurring before entering the combustor and within the jet.
zone. Partitioning the domain below the flame stabilisation point (using As such, times associated with the ignition process would be expected
values of hydrogen mass fraction and temperature corresponding to to decrease as hot fluid will encounter richer mixtures more readily
the flammability limits) identified five regions: fuel (F), oxidiser (O), upon entrainment into the jet. The precise relationship between 𝐽 and
temperature (T), fuel+oxidiser (FO), oxidiser+temperature (OT), and the lift-off height is beyond the scope of this paper and would be
fuel+oxidiser+temperature (FOT). This partitioning was used to anal- more suited to either large eddy simulation, experimental measurement
yse boundary fluxes between each of the zones, which showed that the or direct numerical simulation at lower pressures where resolution
spreading of hydrogen to the point of ignition primarily results from requirements are less stringent. However, flame stability will also be
14
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
15
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
Fig. A.24. Profiles of 𝑌h , 𝑌ho2 , 𝑌oh and heat release rate 𝑄 as functions of temperature for 𝜙 = 0.4, 0.7, 1.0. Reasonable agreement with high-resolution profile is seen throughout,
bar small lags in the heat release profiles in the higher equivalence ratio cases.
ML3 and ML4 resolutions. In the middle case (𝜙 = 0.7, Fig. A.24(b)), nature of the numerical algorithm guarantees that the temperature of
the thermal thickness is 10.8 μm which corresponds to 𝛥𝑥∕𝓁𝐿 = 1.58. the products (and therefore recirculation region) are accurate.
Again, the profiles in both ML3 and ML4 data appear to match well
(despite the sparsity of data points), with a slight lag in the heat release Appendix B. Supplementary animations
noted. Finally, at the highest equivalence ratio (𝜙 = 1, Fig. A.24(c)),
the thermal thickness of 10.7 μm which corresponds to 𝛥𝑥∕𝓁𝐿 = 1.56.
Supplementary material related to this article can be found online
Similar observations are clear, with a nearly identical profile to the
at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2024.113504. Three ani-
𝜙 = 0.7 case, with good agreement, save for the slight lag in the heat
mations are included as supplementary materials. The first (named
release profiles.
‘‘Slices’’) presents diagonal slices through the domain (exploiting pe-
In each case, the flame speed was calculated as
riodicity to stitch the two together); the fields presented in turn are
∞
−1 vorticity magnitude, streamwise velocity, fuel mass fraction, oxygen
𝑠l,lev = 𝜌𝜔̇ d𝑥. (A.1)
𝜌𝑢 𝑌h2 ,𝑢 ∫−∞ h2 mass fraction, temperature, OH mass fraction, HO2 mass fraction, and
The flame speeds at 𝜙 = 0.4 at ML3, 4 and 6 were 0.709, 0.729 and heat release rate. The second presents (named ‘‘Combo’’) combines
0.724 m/s, respectively (i.e. a difference of approximately 2%). The temperature, heat release rate and fuel mass fraction in the red, green
peak differences at 𝜙 = 0.7 and 𝜙 = 1.0 were 0.2% and 1.4%, re- and blue channels, respectively; this highlights the mixing of fuel and
spectively. These small differences will lead to no different conclusions heat, resulting in ignition events. The third (named ‘‘Line of sight’’)
when examining flame speed statistics (i.e. Section 5.1). Furthermore, is the line-of-sight diagnostic, zoomed in on the region where ignition
the specific details of the internal flame structure are largely irrelevant events are observed; the diagnostic eliminates out-of-plane effects, and
for the global structure and stability, and the inherent conservative clearly demonstrates spontaneous ignition.
16
T.L. Howarth et al. Combustion and Flame 265 (2024) 113504
References [28] M.T. Henry de Frahan, L. Esclapez, J. Rood, N.T. Wimer, P. Mullowney, B.A.
Perry, L. Owen, H. Sitaraman, S. Yellapantula, M. Hassanaly, M.J. Rahimi, M.J.
[1] R.W. Schefer, T.D. Smith, C.J. Marek, Evaluation of NASA Lean Premixed Martin, O.A. Doronina, S.N. A., M. Rieth, W. Ge, R. Sankaran, A.S. Almgren, W.
Hydrogen Burner, Tech. Rep. SAND2002-8609, Sandia National Laboratories, Zhang, J.B. Bell, R. Grout, M.S. Day, J.H. Chen, The Pele Simulation Suite for
United States, 2003. Reacting Flows at Exascale, in: Proceedings of the 2024 SIAM Conference on
[2] H.H.-W. Funke, N. Beckmann, S. Abanteriba, An overview on dry low NOx Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, 2024, pp. 13–25.
micromix combustor development for hydrogen-rich gas turbine applications, Int. [29] J.B. Bell, R.K. Cheng, M.S. Day, I.G. Shepherd, Numerical simulation of Lewis
J. Hydrog. Energy 44 (13) (2019) 6978–6990. number effects on lean premixed turbulent flames, Proc. Combust. Inst. 31 (1)
[3] H.H.-W. Funke, N. Beckmann, J. Keinz, A. Horikawa, 30 Years of dry-low-NOx (2007) 1309–1317.
micromix combustor research for hydrogen-rich fuels - an overview of past and [30] T.L. Howarth, A.J. Aspden, An empirical characteristic scaling model for
present activities, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 143 (7) (2021). freely-propagating lean premixed hydrogen flames, Combust. Flame 237 (2022).
[4] A. Haj Ayed, K. Kusterer, H.H.-W. Funke, J. Keinz, C. Striegan, D. Bohn, Ex- [31] A.J. Aspden, M.S. Day, J.B. Bell, Characterization of low lewis number flames,
perimental and numerical investigations of the dry-low-NOx hydrogen micromix Proc. Combust. Inst. 33 (1) (2011) 1463–1471.
combustion chamber of an industrial gas turbine, Propulsion Power Res. 4 (3) [32] T.L. Howarth, E.F. Hunt, A.J. Aspden, Thermodiffusively-unstable lean premixed
(2015) 123–131. hydrogen flames: Phenomenology, empirical modelling, and thermal leading
[5] H.H.-W. Funke, N. Beckmann, J. Keinz, S. Abanteriba, Numerical and experimen- points, Combust. Flame 253 (2023) 112811.
tal evaluation of a dual-fuel dry- low-NOx micromix combustor for industrial gas [33] A.J. Aspden, M.S. Day, J.B. Bell, Turbulence-chemistry interaction in lean
turbine applications, J. Thermal Sci. Eng. Appl. 11 (1) (2019). premixed hydrogen combustion, Proc. Combust. Inst. 35 (2) (2015) 1321–1329.
[6] G. Lopez-Ruiz, I. Alava, J.M. Blanco, Study on the feasibility of the micromix [34] A.J. Aspden, M.S. Day, J.B. Bell, Towards the distributed burning regime in
combustion principle in low NOx H2 burners for domestic and industrial boilers: turbulent premixed flames, J. Fluid Mech. 871 (2019) 1–21.
A numerical approach, Energy 236 (2021) 121456. [35] J.B. Bell, M.S. Day, M.J. Lijewski, Simulation of nitrogen emissions in a premixed
[7] S. Boerner, H.H.-W. Funke, P. Hendrick, E. Recker, R. Elsing, Development and hydrogen flame stabilized on a low swirl burner, Proc. Combust. Inst. 34 (1)
integration of a scalable low NOx combustion chamber for a hydrogen-fueled (2013) 1173–1182.
aerogas turbine, Progr. Propulsion Phys. 4 (2013) 357–372. [36] M.S. Day, S. Tachibana, J.B. Bell, M. Lijewski, V. Beckner, R.K. Cheng, A
[8] J. Zhang, Z. Wang, Q. Li, Thermodynamic efficiency analysis and cycle optimiza- combined computational and experimental characterization of lean premixed
tion of deeply precooled combined cycle engine in the air-breathing mode, Acta turbulent low swirl laboratory flames II. Hydrogen flames, Combust. Flame 162
Astronaut. 138 (2017) 394–406. (5) (2015) 2148–2165.
[9] K. Mahesh, The interaction of jets with crossflow, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 45 [37] M.S. Day, J.B. Bell, Numerical simulation of laminar reacting flows with complex
(2013) 379–407. chemistry, Combust. Theory Model. 4 (4) (2000) 535.
[10] S.H. Smith, M.G. Mungal, Mixing, structure and scaling of the jet in crossflow, [38] A. Nonaka, J.B. Bell, M.S. Day, C. Gilet, A.S. Almgren, M.L. Minion, A deferred
J. Fluid Mech. 357 (1998) 83–122. correction coupling strategy for low mach number flow with complex chemistry,
[11] J.W. Shan, P.E. Dimotakis, Reynolds-number effects and anisotropy in Combust. Theory Model. 16 (6) (2012) 1053–1088.
transverse-jet mixing, J. Fluid Mech. 566 (2006) 47–96. [39] A. Nonaka, M.S. Day, J.B. Bell, A conservative, thermodynamically consistent
[12] L. Gevorkyan, T. Shoji, D.R. Getsinger, O.I. Smith, A.R. Karagozian, Transverse numerical approach for low mach number combustion. Part I: Single-level
jet mixing characteristics, J. Fluid Mech. 790 (2016) 237–274. integration, Combust. Theory Model. 22 (1) (2017) 156–184.
[13] L. Gevorkyan, T. Shoji, W.Y. Peng, A.R. Karagozian, Influence of the velocity [40] M.P. Burke, M. Chaos, Y. Ju, F.L. Dryer, S.J. Klippenstein, Comprehensive H2/O2
field on scalar transport in gaseous transverse jets, J. Fluid Mech. 834 (2018) kinetic model for high-pressure combustion, Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 44 (7) (2012)
173–219. 444–474.
[14] D.R. Getsinger, L. Gevorkyan, O.I. Smith, A.R. Karagozian, Structural and stability [41] A.J. Aspden, N. Nikiforakis, S.B. Dalziel, J.B. Bell, Analysis of implicit LES
characteristics of jets in crossflow, J. Fluid Mech. 760 (4) (2014) 342–367. methods, Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 3 (1) (2008) 103–126.
[15] K.M. Lyons, Toward an understanding of the stabilization mechanisms of lifted [42] H. Schlichting, J. Kestin, Boundary layer theory, vol. 121, Springer, 1961.
turbulent jet flames: Experiments, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 33 (2) (2007) [43] D.G. Goodwin, R.L. Speth, H.K.M. Weber, B. W., Cantera: An object-oriented
211–231. software toolkit for chemical kinetics, thermodynamics, and transport processes,
[16] C.J. Lawn, Lifted flames on fuel jets in co-flowing air, Prog. Energy Combust. 2018.
Sci. 35 (1) (2009) 1–30. [44] K. Bray, P. Domingo, L. Vervisch, Role of the progress variable in models
[17] N. Peters, F.A. Williams, Liftoff characteristics of turbulent jet diffusion flames, for partially premixed turbulent combustion, Combust. Flame 141 (4) (2005)
AIAA J. 21 (3) (1983) 423–429. 431–437.
[18] N. Peters, Turbulent combustion, Cambridge University Press, 2000. [45] H. Yamashita, M. Shimada, T. Takeno, A numerical study on flame stability at
[19] J.E. Broadwell, W.J. Dahm, M.G. Mungal, Blowout of turbulent diffusion flames, the transition point of jet diffusion flames, Symp. (International) Combust. 26
Symp. (International) Combust. 20 (1) (1985) 303–310. (1) (1996) 27–34.
[20] J. Buckmaster, R. Weber, Edge-flame-holding, Symp. (International) Combust. 26 [46] P. Domingo, L. Vervisch, K. Bray, Partially premixed flamelets in LES of
(1) (1996) 1143–1149. nonpremixed turbulent combustion, Combust. Theory Model. 6 (4) (2002) 529.
[21] S. Karami, E.R. Hawkes, M. Talei, J.H. Chen, Mechanisms of flame stabilisation [47] N. Peters, The turbulent burning velocity for large-scale and small-scale
at low lifted height in a turbulent lifted slot-jet flame, J. Fluid Mech. 777 (2015) turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 384 (1999) 107–132.
633–689. [48] L. Berger, A. Attili, H. Pitsch, Intrinsic instabilities in premixed hydrogen flames:
[22] C. Pantano, Direct simulation of non-premixed flame extinction in a methane–air parametric variation of pressure, equivalence ratio, and temperature. Part 2 –
jet with reduced chemistry, J. Fluid Mech. 514 (2004) 231–270. non-linear regime and flame speed enhancement, Combust. Flame 240 (2022)
[23] C.S. Yoo, R. Sankaran, J.H. Chen, Three-dimensional direct numerical simulation 111936.
of a turbulent lifted hydrogen jet flame in heated coflow: flame stabilization and [49] L. Berger, K. Kleinheinz, A. Attili, H. Pitsch, Characteristic patterns of thermod-
structure, J. Fluid Mech. 640 (2009) 453–481. iffusively unstable premixed lean hydrogen flames, Proc. Combust. Inst. 37 (2)
[24] S.G. Kerkemeier, C.N. Markides, C.E. Frouzakis, K. Boulouchos, Direct numerical (2019) 1879–1886.
simulation of the autoignition of a hydrogen plume in a turbulent coflow of hot [50] J.C. Massey, I. Langella, N. Swaminathan, A scaling law for the recirculation
air, J. Fluid Mech. 720 (2013) 424–456. zone length behind a bluff body in reacting flows, J. Fluid Mech. 875 (2019)
[25] S. Karami, E.R. Hawkes, M. Talei, J.H. Chen, Edge flame structure in a turbulent 699–724.
lifted flame: A direct numerical simulation study, Combust. Flame 169 (2016) [51] D.P. Kallifronas, P. Ahmed, J.C. Massey, M. Talibi, A. Ducci, R. Balachandran,
110–128. N. Swaminathan, K.N. Bray, Influences of heat release, blockage ratio and swirl
[26] C.S. Yoo, E.S. Richardson, R. Sankaran, J.H. Chen, A DNS study on the on the recirculation zone behind a bluff body, Combust. Theory Model. (2022).
stabilization mechanism of a turbulent lifted ethylene jet flame in highly-heated [52] D. Most, F. Dinkelacker, A. Leipertz, Lifted reaction zones in premixed turbulent
coflow, Proc. Combust. Inst. 33 (1) (2011) 1619–1627. bluff-body stabilized flames, Proc. Combust. Inst. 29 (2) (2002) 1801–1808.
[27] L. Esclapez, M. Day, J. Bell, A. Felden, C. Gilet, R. Grout, M. Henry de Frahan,
E. Motheau, A. Nonaka, L. Owen, B. Perry, J. Rood, N. Wimer, W. Zhang,
PeleLMeX: an AMR Low Mach Number Reactive Flow Simulation Code without
level sub-cycling, J. Open Source Softw. 8 (90) (2023) 5450.
17