Numerical investigation on effects of fuel tube diameter and co-flow velocity in a methane/air non-premixed flame

  • Mohsen Nasiri Soloklou
  • Ali Akbar GolneshanEmail author


In this paper, the effects of variations in the fuel tube diameter and co-flow velocity in the combustion chamber on the non-premixed laminar flame are investigated. Methane gas, as a fuel, and the dry air, as an oxidizer. The size of the combustion chamber is constant and, by changing the fuel tube diameter and co-flow velocity, changes in the numerical values of temperature, velocity, density, and concentration of the species of reactants and products in the combustion chamber are evaluated. A finite volume method (FVM) with staggered grids is used for numerical solution. Equations of continuity, momentum, energy, ideal gas state and kinetic equations with thermodynamic and thermochemical information of chemical species are solved using numerical method of SIMPLE. The convective terms are discretized using Power Law scheme (PLS).The calculations are carried out using Dryer and Glassman’s three-stage chemical kinetics. Variable under relaxation factor dependent on temperature has been used to handle the solving chemical kinetic equations. Initially, the results of calculations are compared with the experimental and numerical results of other researchers, which show an acceptable agreement.. The results show that increasing the diameter ratio reduces the length of the flame. With the large ratio of the diameters, location of the combustion’s maximum temperature is at the chamber entrance and for the small diameter ratios, its location moves to nearly outlet of the chamber. In addition, the reduction of the ratio of the diameters increases the flame lift-off. Also the results show that the optimal of diameters ratio is 0.6 in order to prevent the lift-off flame and return the flame to inlet opening of combustion chamber. Also increasing the fuel tube diameter, increases the amount of oxygen due to the return flow formation and decreases the volumes of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the centerline of the combustion chamber. The flame length attains the maximum possible value with respect to diameter ratio of 0.6 at inlet air velocity of 0.3 m/s. In addition, it is shown that increasing the air velocity increases the total flame lift-off and flame length until the air velocity reaches the value of around 0.3 m/s and by increasing the air velocity more than 0.3 m/s, the total flame lift-off and flame length decreases.


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Bennett BAV, McEnally CS, Pfefferle LD, Smooke MD (2000) Computational and experimental study of axisymmetric coflow partially premixed methane/air flames. Combust Flame 123(4):522–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burke SP, Schumann TEW (1928) Diffusion flames. Ind Eng Chem 20(10):998–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glassman I, Yetter RA, Glumac NG (2014) Combustion. Academic Press, Wyman Street,Waltham, MA 02451, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghosal S, Vervisch L (2001) Stability diagram for lift-off and blowout of a round jet laminar diffusion flame. Combust Flame 124(4):646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McEnally CS et al (2000) Characterization of a coflowing methane/air non-premixed flame with computer modeling, rayleigh-raman imaging, and on-line mass spectrometry. Proc Combust Inst 28(2):2063–2070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. E. Usowicz, "An experimental study of flame lengths and emissions of fully-modulated diffusion flames," 2001Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore JD, Risha GA, Kuo KK, D'Agostini MD (2005) Effect of reactant initial temperature on methane/oxygen diffusion flame stability in a furnace. Combust Sci Technol 177(11):2069–2089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomson KA, Gülder ÖL, Weckman EJ, Fraser RA, Smallwood GJ, Snelling DR (2005) Soot concentration and temperature measurements in co-annular, nonpremixed CH4/air laminar flames at pressures up to 4 MPa. Combust Flame 140(3):222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bento DS, Thomson KA, Gülder ÖL (2006) Soot formation and temperature field structure in laminar propane–air diffusion flames at elevated pressures. Combust Flame 145(4):765–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    James AF (1954) The distributions of concentration and temperature in a laminar jet diffusion flame. J Aeronaut Sci 21(10):681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baker J, Srireddy K, Varagani R (2003) Buoyancy-controlled laminar diffusuion slot flame heights: a comparison of theoretical predictions and microgravity results. Microgravity Sci Technol 14(4):27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang Y et al (2001) Buoyancy influence on wrinkled premixed V-flames. Microgravity Sci Technol 13(1):8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smooke MD, Puri IK, Seshadri K (1988) A comparison between numerical calculations and experimental measurements of the structure of a counterflow diffusion flame burning diluted methane in diluted air. Symp (Int) Combust 21(1):1783–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smooke MD, Mitchell RE, Keyes DE (1986) Numerical solution of two-dimensional axisymmetric laminar diffusion flames. Combust Sci Technol 67(4–6):85–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu Y, Smooke MD, Lin P, Long MB (1993) Primitive variable modeling of multidimensional laminar flames. Combust Sci Technol 90(5–6):289–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walsh KT (2000) Experimental and computational study of temperature, species, and soot in buoyant and non-buoyant coflow laminar diffusion flames. Proc Combust Inst 28(2):1973–1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Claramunt K (2004) Multidimensional mathematical modeling and numerical investigation of co-flow partially premixed methane/air laminar flames. Combust Flame 137(4):444–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walsh KT, Fielding J, Smooke MD, Long MB, Liñán A (2005) A comparison of computational and experimental lift-off heights of coflow laminar diffusion flames. Proc Combust Inst 30(1):357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tarhan T, SelÇUk N (2007) A novel CFD code based on method of lines for reacting flows: verification on methane/air diffusion flame. Combust Sci Technol 179(1–2):39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dworkin SB et al (2007) Computational and experimental study of a forced, time-dependent, methane–air coflow diffusion flame. Proc Combust Inst 31(1):971–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bennett BAV, Cheng Z, Pitz RW, Smooke MD (2008) Computational and experimental study of oxygen-enhanced axisymmetric laminar methane flames. Combust Theor Model 12(3):497–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cao S et al (2015) A computational and experimental study of coflow laminar methane/air diffusion flames: effects of fuel dilution, inlet velocity, and gravity. Proc Combust Inst 35(1):897–903MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cao S, Ma B, Giassi D, Bennett BAV, Long MB, Smooke MD (2017) Effects of pressure and fuel dilution on coflow laminar methane–air diffusion flames: a computational and experimental study. Combust Theor Model 22(2):316–337MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glarborg P, Miller JA, Kee RJ (1986) Kinetic modeling and sensitivity analysis of nitrogen oxide formation in well-stirred reactors. Combust Flame 65(2):177–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller JA, Bowman CT (1989) Mechanism and modeling of nitrogen chemistry in combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci 15(4):287–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Konnov AA (2000) Detailed reaction mechanism for small hydrocarbons combustion. Release 0.5.
  27. 27.
    Smith GP et al (2000) GRI-Mech 3.0.
  28. 28.
    Westbrook CK, Dryer FL (1981) Simplified reaction mechanisms for the oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels in flames. Combust Sci Technol 27(1–2):31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jones WP, Lindstedt RP (1988) Global reaction schemes for hydrocarbon combustion. Combust Flame 73(3):233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lougou BG, Shuai Y, Xing H, Yuan Y, Tan H (2017) Thermal performance analysis of solar thermochemical reactor for syngas production. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 111:410–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lougou BG, Shuai Y, Chen X, Yuan Y, Tan H, Xing H (2017) Analysis of radiation heat transfer and temperature distributions of solar thermochemical reactor for syngas production. Front Energy 4:480–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dryer FL, Glassman I (1973) High-temperature oxidation of CO and CH4. Symp (Int) Combust 14(1):987–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nicol DG, Malte PC, Hamer AJ, Roby RJ, Steele RC (1999) Development of a five-step global methane oxidation-NO formation mechanism for lean-premixed gas turbine combustion. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 121(2):272–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Turns SR (1996) An introduction to combustion. McGraw-HIll, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Patankar S (2018) Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. CRC press, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bowman H Davidson, Gardiner, Lissinsky, Smith, Golden, Frenklach, Goldenberg. GRI Mech. 3.0.
  37. 37.
    Mitchell RE, Sarofim AF, Clomburg L (1980) Experimental and numerical investigation of confined laminar diffusion flames. Combust Flame 37:227–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tarhan T, Selcuk N (2003) Numerical simulation of a confined methane/air laminar diffusion flame by the method of lines. Turk J Eng Environ Sci 27(4):275–290Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cengel YA, Boles MA (2002) Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. Sea 1000:8862Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Thermo-Fluids, School of Mechanical EngineeringShiraz UniversityShirazIran

Personalised recommendations