COMBUSTION DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS

J. SWITHENBANK, I. POLL, M. W. VINCENT

Department of Chemical Engineering and Fuel Technology, Universityof She.~eld, She~eld, England
AND

D. D. WRIGHT

Create, Inc., Hanover, New Hampshire

A technique for mathematically modelling combustors has been developed, based on turbulent mixing concepts applied to partially stirred reactors, which takes as its starting point the geometrical shape for a given design and predicts the performance variables, such as blow-off stability limits, combustion efficiency, combustion intensity, and over-all pressure loss. Turbulence levels within the combustor are also calculated, and these can be used to evaluate noise output, ignition, heat transfer, etc. The model consists of a scheme of interconnected reactors, whose individual performance is computed from a theory of partially stirred reactors which utilizes energy-balance principles to evaluate the unmixedness. Experimental verification of the model has been obtained with a high-intensity gas-turbinetype combustor, which was represented theoretically by seven interconnected reactors. The analysis showed that the stability loops of the flame-stabilizing reactors were so narrow that the local equivalence ratio should still be close to unity at the over-all combustor blow-off stability limits. Satisfactory agreement was obtained between the predicted and measured over-all stability loops. This general approach can form the basis for combustor design which may be readily elaborated to improve the prediction accuracy in specific applications.

Introduction

Design techniques for combustors must be based on a clear understanding of the physical and chemical processes occurring within the reactor, and the manner in which these are related to the system geometry. This study presents a model, based on turbulent mixing concepts applied to partially-stirred reactors, which takes as its starting point the geometrical shape for a given design, and predicts the following primary performance variables: 1. Blow-off stability limits; 2. Combustion over-all efficiency; 3. Combustion intensity; 4. 0ver-all pressure losses. Further, secondary, performance variables may be obtained through subsidiary analyses; for instance, 627

628

FLAMES IN FURNACES AND COMBUSTORS

Variable
5. Ignition capability

Source Analysis
Direct application of thermal reactor physics, for thermal ignition. Application of turbulence to critical volume calculation for spark ignition Reactor heat balance, via the specific kinetic time (see later) Implied temperature profiles, and limiting combustion efficiency from turbulence levels Monopole source distribution, and local gas-expansion rates Unsteady-state reactor heat-balance solutions to obtain the flame-transfer functions Direct effects of the predicted turbulence levels. Effects of heat losses (convective and/or radiative) on the reactor performance

6. Pressure and temperature effects 7. NO~ and unburneds, pollution-production rates 8. Noise-output efficiency (combustion roar) 9. Flame-system oscillations 10. Wall heat transfer (including film cooling)

Full knowledge of the above ten system variables, and their interrelations, allows development of a design-optimization procedure in any particular
case.

terms of the conversion of oxygen; in nondimensional form,

I:

Design Principles
The approach is based on a physical model of the combustion process which includes: turbulent mixing, droplet evaporation, chemical kinetics, and gross recirculation of the flow. Each of these factors is incorporated into a basic, over-all scheme of interconnected reactors, such as shown in Fig. 1, where the partially stirred reactors are denoted by WSR (Well-Stirred Reactor), and the final burnout to the mixinglimited condition is achieved in a plug-flow reactor (PFR), following Bragg1 and Be6r and Lee.2 With specific alterations to the theory proposed, the scheme of reactors may be varied to account for many flow patterns. In particular, reaction and/or heat loss in the reactor or recycle stream may be included. Each reactor within the flow scheme is analyzed through an extended heat balance over the inlet and exit streams. For a stirred reactor, this analysis reduces to a zero-dimensional system. In steady-state operation, Heat liberated by chemical reaction I = Heat removed from reactor volume II

(1--~b)i = {1~- (1/~'SD)+[-exp (AR/T)/~'SK]} -1, (1) where rSD = rs/rD,

T S K ~ TS//TK,

AR= E/R,

+=C/Co.
Equation (1) retains the sigmoid form indicated in Fig. 2, regardless of the conditions of heat removal (II) from the reactor volume. However, side II of the balance, itself, will depend entirely on the flame heat-transfer condition (luminous, convective, adiabatic). For the simplest case of adiabatic heat removal, the reaction products leaving the reactor contain

~ FUEL RECYCLE -~PRODUCTS

Each side of the balance may be formulateda in

FIG. 1. General reactor sequence. WSR, well-stirred reactor; PFI~, plug-flowreactor.

COMBUSTION DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS

629

1.0

0-8

"-.T--.O. 6
!

PROPANE/AIR

0
u') 0.4
r~

=~.o
To= 5 0 0 K

w >
Z

0
~0.2

"/2s~- c~, R=O I: 2: 3: 4: 300 "ds= IOO SECS i~'s= 19.8 ~ds= O-01 i~s= 0 . 0 0 0 4 0 7 2000 ~AX

0
0

To

I OOO

I 5OO T E M P E R A T U R E (T)K

Fro. 2. The adiabatic stirred-reactor heat balance. all the heat produced; thus, II: (i--~b)H=~ (T-- To), (2) Eq. (3)3 has been performed by computer, on a trial-and-error corlvergence method. Special cases include: 1. Points as A on curve 3 are metastable w.r.t., small changes of the inlet parameters

where v = t h e slope of the heat-removal line= f(TAF, [0~], IN2]), a TAF=adiabatic flame temperature at = 1.0, and [02], I N 2 ] = oxygen and nitrogen concentrations at the reactor inlet. The form of solution obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2) is shown in Fig. 2 for various stay times rs. The reaction considered here is that of propane/air for which the rate equation, in terms of oxygen consumption, has been obtained by 0dgers. 4 "rK may be derived from the reactionrate equation, and in this case, takes the form, VK [- (0.08206)2/(1.29X 10l) ]
=

(~s, , To).
2. Thermal ignition stay-time is achieved as curve 2. 3. Blow-off occurs at the stay-time given by curve 4. 4. Upper intersections correspond to stable combustion conditions (conversion and temperature at the reactor outlet). Lower intersections represent slow oxidation of the reactants at, or near, room temperature. The design analysis requires, next, the determination of the mixing-time factor rsD in Eq. (1), a M the effects of both rSD and gross flow recirculation on the stability and intensity of combustion.

[5M-t-5+2~-- 24'] 20" Co. TA c~'-'5)

(3)

where M = ratio of inerts/oxygen at the reactor inlet, = equivalence ratio, C0=initial 02 concentration, T A = To+ ( Tr,,~-- To ) ( 1-- ~b), and Tm~ is given by Eq. (2) at (1--~b)ii=l.0. The solution of Eqs. (1) and (2) [including

Recirculation and Mixing Effects

The mixedness (rSD) of a given partially stirred reactor may be related to the system

630

FLAMES IN FURNACES AND COMBUSTORS (a) in turn, the shear is produced by the pressure loss across a baffle or other type of stabilizer, we may write for the whole flow, in steady state, (a) pressure drop across baffle _ .~ov.
-K.~ V, O

Ap

= (b) energy "held" in flow-velocity profile + (c) turbulence kinetic energy + (d) dissipation energy, (4)

0
(b)

5 /~

x/x

I0

/ ~D/q / ) AIX/X

,=CHARACTERISTIC BAFFLEDIMENSION x=AXIAL STANCE DI

which comprises the flow energy balance. Term (a) is a constant for a given baffle [ = f (baffle blockage, drag coeffleient)]. Term (b) will decay with distance as the velocity profile is converted to turbulent eddies; thus, the sum of terms (c) and (d) will increase. In algebraic form, the balance becomes

Ap/q= (KE~v/q)+3(u'/U)~+ (D/q),

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(5)

~ q=DYNAMIEITIII~F ~ D

SECTION using the dynamic head q= pO2. I0

where the terms have been nondimensionalized,

x/X

Fro. 3. Flow energy-balance components. geometry and method of flame stabilization via the stabilizer pressure drop and the associated flow turbulence. It is first hypothesized thatS: degree of mixing achieved = degree of turbulent dissipation

For a typical baffle, the terms in Eq. (5) appear as in Fig. 3(a), plotted against the nondimensional axial distance from the baffle, x/k, h being the baffle characteristic dimension. From Fig. 3(b), the slope of the D/q-vs-x/h curve in Fig. 3 (a), it may be seen that the relative dissipation reaches a maximum and then reduces to near zero, at which point the turbulent mixing is negligible and the PFR is established. Using the turbulence parameters as a measure of the dissipation time TD, we may write
~'D o: U'r~=/l,,

(6)

within a given flow volume. This assumption follows directly from the observation that velocity and concentration fluctuations decay simultaneously within turbulent flows by molecular motion (Reynolds' analogy); and from the physical reasoning that reaction cannot take place until the reactants are mixed on a molecular scale, i.e., until the larger flow eddies have formed small eddies, and these, in turn, have dissipated by viscous forces. An energy balance over the flow and stabilizer now may be performed, in order to determine the degree of dissipation achieved by a given geometry, and the extent of the dissipation region (taken as equivalent to the reactor volume). Since flow turbulence is produced by the generation of shear regions in the flow (evident as a velocity profile about a mean value) and,

where u~x '= maximum value of the rms turbuIent velocity fluctuations assuming no dissipation, and l,= mean size of the energy-containing eddies 0.2X, typically. For a constant mean velocity system,

r8=x/o,

(7)

where X=reaetor length given in Fig. 3(b), = 10X, typically; thus,

sDo: (x/l~) (u'/O ) . . . .

(8)

or, typically, rs---- 50 (u'/O) . . . . (9)

COMBUSTION DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS

631

1.6

_o 1.4
1-.< m (9 z w > 1.2

cl
t~ o , 8 I---

STAYTIME ("~'So)s c C

0.5

0.4-

FIG. 4. Blow-off loops for a WSR, under specific conditions of recycle and unmixedness, T0=300K.

Since ), is cancelled, ~'SD is conveniently independent of the baffle-hole spacing. This spacing, therefore, only determines the size of the stirred region (i.e., rs). The factor ( u ' / U ) ~ , the maximum value of the turbulence intensity, is thus the link between the system geometry and the mixing-time factor,

Thus,

TSD

may be evaluated from Eq. (9) as rSD-- 50 (~/3)112.

( u ' / O ) ~ , = f (baffle blockage, drag coefficient).

Applying the flow energy balance over the baffle system gives _ 3 ~, ,2 D max-- yP~max ,

=~.p0 ~,
-- AP,
or

(D/q)max= 3 (U'/U )max2,

=~,
= AP/q.

Hence

(u'/U)m~x = (AP/3q) 112,

= (~/3)1/2. (10)

The principal effect of unmixedness (decrease of ~'ZD) is to lower the outlet conversion from a given stirred reactor. At the same time, the stability limits (loading or stay-time at blow-off vs inlet equivalence ratio) are widened for all equivalence ratios significantly removed from = 1 . 0 . While at, or near, = 1 , the minimum stay-time is increased for decrease of rZD (see Fig. 4). This fact, observed in many flame applications, follows from the trends of Eqs. (1), (2), and (3), above (see also Ref. 15). Decrease of TZD causes a reduction of the possible reactor outlet conversion (1--~b)i, according to Eq. (1). Consequently, if the heat balance lies at a solution, (1--~b)i--(1--~b)ii, the temperature T of the outlet products is also reduced [Eq. (2) for fixed -]. Now, the effect on TK of this reduction in (1--~)i depends oa the prevailing equivalence ratio ~ at the inlet. At, or near, =1.0, rE is reduced [-Eq. (3)1; hence, the blow-off point occurs at higher staytimes as rSD decreases (poorer mixing). However, as is decreased past a critical value, the kinetic time TK is increased with poorer mixing, as the terms containing (1--~b), (or ~b), in the denominator of Eq. (3) become less significant. Hence, the blow-off stay-time is reduced with poorer mixing. However, this critical value of

632

FLAMES IN FURNACES AND COMBUSTORS lets are present in the system, the droplet evaporation time contributes to the total diffusion time. These two times are not simply added, since turbulent mixing commences as soon as part of the fuel is evaporated, and the modified relation used to obtain rD is
rD~--- (re2-[-rn'2) 112, (11)

~b, at which the trend of rs at blow-off with rs0 inverts, is not a constant for a given fuel type, e.g., as shown in Fig. 4, the changeover in trend occurs at (R=O) (a) ~ = ~ 0 . 9 , for the cases: rzD--10 and 5;

(b) ~ = ~ 0 . 7 , for the cases: rSD=5 and 2. For the case of gross flow recirculation of partially burned reactor products, from the reactor outlet to the entry point, solution of the propane/air mass balance and inlet-stream temperature for adiabatic recycle6 shows the two opposing effects of (1) Decreased effective inlet oxygen concentration, and (2) Increased effective reactor inlet temperature, which, combined, provide an optimum recycle ratio to give maximum thermal stability. Figure 4 demonstrates the effects of mixedness (rSD) and recycle ratio,

R = mass flow rate recycled/

mass flow rate of final products, on the stability limits of a WSR. The stay-time scale is referred in, this case to the initial feed temperature To. Notes: 1. As R---), the model demonstrates the tendency of the reactor toward perfectly stirred (rSD---~o) conditions, both in terms of conversion, and of stability. 2. The curve for R=O, rSD-'--+~, corresponds to the respective transformed data of Odgers, 4 used to derive rE EEq. (3)~. The subsequent plug-flow burn-out section (see Fig. 1) is now defined as a region of no mixing. Thus, true burn-out may only occur to the condition, limited by the dissipation in the stirred section(s). Thus,
~max =

where rD=mixing time, including droplet evaporation, re-- droplet evaporation time, and rD'= turbulent mixing time. re depends on temperature, concentration, pressure, turbulence, droplet size distribution, and flow and droplet velocity? This model is in accordance with present evidence, which suggests that, in practical high-intensity, liquidfueled combustors, the fuel vapor and air burn in a distributed flame zone rather than as fiamelets surrounding each drop. It will be noted that this concept can be easily extended to pulverized-solid-fuel systems.

Combustion Noise

Space precludes discussion of all items mentioned in the "Introduction" that may be treated by this model. However, the approach will be illustrated by reference to combustionroar noise determination. The efficiency of noise production by a turbulent flame may be written as 9.~0 'TN= E (k-- 1 )2a/47r~ (SL/c) (u'2/H), (12)

where k = expansion ratio of burned to unburned

gas,

SL= laminar flame speed

= f (dpo, To, rE),
H = total heat output,

(1--$)final----- (I/r~gD)] -I [i-~-

= 1--0.02 (3/~) '/2.

Combination of the stirred/plug-flow sections ['in a manner similar to that of Be6r and Lee, 2 but incorporating the blow-off limitation on the stirred reactor(s)J provides a maximization of the system combustion intensity and stability (i.e. an over-all design optimization~, through the parameters R and rsD,~ for giver~ inlet conditions of ~o, To, rg.
Droplet Systems

c= local sound speed,

a = m a s s of air/mass of f u e l = f (~b0). Clearly, in the calculation of rSD outlined in the previous section the r.m.s, turbulent fluctuations u' are also derived, and hence all the terms in the above Eq. (12) are known. The principal result is that, since (u'/0)~,ax is constant for any burner, the turbulent combustion roar should increase by 6 dB per octave, i.e., for every doubling of the reactor throughput. This result is confirmed by several experimenters

Since the effect of unmixedness is represented in the analysis by a diffusion time, if fuel drop-

COMBUSTION

DESIGN

FUNDAMENTALS

633

(e.g., Smith and Kilham, TM and Giammar and Putnam il).

60

~
\ ~ 0 ~40 k-o

./PRIMA~Y WSR MAX. LOADING

~/ / K , N E T i C A L L Y LIMITED WEAK
LIMIT. \ ~/ / / SWlRLER *SR MAX, EVAPORATION LIMITED

Effect of Unmizedness on Nitric Oxide Production The effect of unmixedness on NO~ production is due to the nonlinear dependence of NO production (via the Zeldovich equations) on the temperature. Thus, in the partially .mixed zones of the combustor, computations based on the measured average temperature drastically underestimate the NO-production rate. The inclusion of a mixing time allows prediction of the fluctuating temperature profile within the stirred zones, and, hence, a more realistic evaluation of the NO~ production. This effect can account for an increase in the NO-production rate of about an order of magnitude, in the turbulent reactor region of a burner, but makes no difference in the plug-flow region.

~/

~ /

/CHAMBER

,'

0.2 0.4 0.6 TOTAL AIR FLOW Kcj/sc

0.8

FIG. 5. Experimental and theoretical can blow-off

limits;

Experimental Studies
The experimental facilities available at our research laboratories are such that tests on a small gas-turbine-type eombustor could be undertaken over a fairly wide range of operating variables. The rig comprises a 100-hp electric motor driving an air compressor feeding 0.3 kg/sec filtered air, at approximately 75C to the pressure chamber housing the combustor can. Fuel is fed to a pressure atomizer nozzle at up to 35 bars. The can exhausts to atmosphere. A series of blow-off runs have been conducted, with a view to verifying the predictions made concerning operating stability. The results are plotted in Fig. 5 as blow-off (air/fuel ratio vs total eombustor air flow). A set of seven interconnected reactors were chosen to model the eombustor, as follows. The combustor is 70 mm diam by 200 mm long, with a swirler surrounding the fuel nozzle and three sets of six holes carrying primary, secondary, and dilution flow, respectively. The flow dis, tribution through the swirler and other holes was evaluated from their area and discharge coefficient. Since the velocity profile in the vicinity of each set of six impinging jets decays rapidly, the size of the various stirred reactors could be estimated from the geometry. A single stirred reactor and plug-flow reactor represented the dilution region, and, similarly, the secondary region. Because there was only a short distance between the primary and secondary holes, a

plug-flow section was not inserted between these two. The primary reactor received both primary air and hot products recirculated via the swirler reactor and the recycle reactor. Water-model studies indicated that the recycle reactor had very little turbulence, and it was therefore represented by a PFR. The swirler reactor is fed by both swirler air and recycled products. The proposed set of interconnected reactors, and their volumes, are shown in Fig. 6. A simple entrainment model was used to obtain the flow in the recycle path, where the amount of flow entrained into the jet (Win) is given by

W,,,/Wi = 0.32 (x/do) (p/pjCD )i/2,

where Wj is the jet mass flow, z the jet distance, do the hole diameter, p, pj the hot- and jet-gas densities, and CD the discharge coefficient. A more-accurate cross-stream jet-entrainment function is given in Ref. 13. This entrainment model could also be used to optimize the number of dilution holes, since the optimum would be obtained when the dilution air just entrained all the axial flow. Insufficient entrainment would result ia a cold core, and could be remedied by using a larger number of smaller holes. This entrainment model also predicts that the recyele rate in hot flow is doubled in cold-flow tests with the same geometry. The flame stability is determined by the swirler and primary reactors, and it will be noted that these bootstrap on each other--that is, if either goes out, the whole chamber extinguishes. From the inlet pressure, temperature, recycle ratio, and mixedness rap, the previous analytical partially stirred reactor model was

634

FLAMES

IN FURNACES

AND

COMBUSTORS

AIF(
Ira.

J SWIRLER
5.,-% 3

IO- 078

JPIMARY

0.255

I SECONDARY

0.299

I DILUTION
9.9,5 m 3 1 3 9.9.,6% 3
UCTS

0,368

,.2v.,5% 1 ,.,2.,5%s 3

0.167

TOTAL CAN VOLUME-6.8.i04m 3

I
FUEL

r1

FIG. 6. Gas-turbine can; proposedintereonl~ectioll of reactors comprising I~odel.

used to predict the blow-off residence time, assuming stoichiometric mixture in the reactor. (This optimum mixture would always be obtained at some over-all fuel/air ratio.) The limiting air flow through the reactor is then given by volumetric flow rate--volume/time, where it will be remembered that the time is based on inlet conditions. This flow rate is scaled to apply to the whole combustor. The appropriate limits for the primary and swirler reactors are plotted on Fig. 5, and it can be seen that the primary will extinguish first. The curve has a knee at the air/fuel ratio, at which the primary region is all stoichiometric, and, for any further increase in air/fuel ratio, the limit must reduce. Depending on the design of the fuel-distribution system, operation at any point within the hatched lines is feasible. For a single injector, operation will only occur at a single point on the hatched line. For the particular let nozzle fitted in these tests, about 80% of the fuel evaporated in the primary, and this point lay at an air/fuel ratio of about 35. For a typical fuel-droplet-size distribution, it is difficult to approach the knee more closely, since (as shown in Ref. 14, Fig. 1 ) the large droplets take a long time to burn out. Considering next the rich limit: When the air flow is halved, because the region must still be close to stoichiometric, the fuel flow wilt be approximately halved and the droplet characteristic size increases by about four times. Since the droplet size depends on the fuel pressure to the power of --0.25, turning to Fig. 2 of Ref. 14, we find that the evaporation rate is almost proportional to the droplet size, hence, the evaporation rate is decreased by 1/~f2--0.71. The mixture ratio at the rich limit is therefore decreased by a factor of 1/~f2 each time the air flow is halved, and a rich limit, as indicated on Fig. 5, is anticipated. Two further factors which almost compensate each other are: 1) The rich limit broadens by about 10% for a stirred reactor operating at half its kinetic limit (Fig. 4) and, 2) the extra fuel flow, due to the improved rich limit, requires an increase in fuel pressure, and causes a reduction in droplet size and increase in evaporation rate. Prediction of the weak limit is more difficult since it depends on the proportion of the fuel evaporated in the primary region. If we postulate that the proportion evaporated is constant as the air flow is reduced then the weak limit would remain almost constant, If, on the other hand, the evaporation was not limiting at part loading, then the reactor could operate at its kinetic limit and halving the air flow would double the effective mixture ratio, since half the reactor could be operating fully loaded with the other half doing nothing. In the experimental blow-off stability loop tests, the rich limit agreed reasonably well with the theoretical predictions, while the weak limit lay approximately along the evaporation limited line. The weak limit varied considerably with changes in the air temperature, in accordance with this hypothesis. The peak loading alse agreed with the predictions; however, due to the limitations of the prediction, such close agreement is probably

COMBUSTION DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS

635

/%

FIG. 7. Gas-turbine can; temperature traverses. Temperatures in C.

636

FLAMES IN FURNACES AND COMBUSTORS REFERENCES 1. BRAGG, S. L.: Atomic Research Council Paper No. 16170, C.F. 272, Sept. 1953. 2. BE~R, J. M. AND LEE, K. B.: Tenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, p. 1187, The Combustion Institute, 1965. 3. V~LIS, L. A.: Thermal Regimes of Combustion, McGraw-Hill, 1961. 4. ODGERS,J.: The Influence of Mixedness on Combustion Performance, Rept. No. B.48, 672, Lueas Gas Turbine Equipment Ltd.; and private communication, 1970. 5. SWITHENBANK, J.: Combustion fundamentals, Univ. of Sheffield, Dept. of Chem. Eng. Report No. HIC. 150; Available as: AD 710321 from U.S.A. Defense Documentation Center and

fortuitous. Nevertheless, the analysis can be used to estimate the likely effect of design perturbations, such as changes in air distribution, fuel nozzle flow number, etc. Temperature traverses carried out (Fig. 7) clearly show the contours within the combustor, which verify the above model. The cold core at the exit of the secondary and dilution regions are in accordance with the entrainment model. The hot primary core, close to the swirler, which recirculates and is entrained into the radial primary jets, is also clearly apparent on the temperature traverses which have been made.

Conclusions

1. A composite method of eombustor design, based on partially mixed reactor modelling, has been proposed, and is shown to provide consistent results in the light of present experimental evidence. 2. The method may be usefully extended to incorporate an over-all design optimization of such turbulent burner systems, and to provide information on NOr, unburneds, and noise emissions, as well as design of more complex u n i t s - e.g., staged combustion heterogeneous s y s t e m s - and the effects of dilution air. 3. The ultimate utility of this modelling technique, with regard to combustor design and performance prediction, depends on its application and testing against a variety of burner types and operating conditions. To this end, a program of work directed toward the design of premixed, gas-fired, tunnel burners using this method is, at present, underway. 1~

USAF/OSR/70/2110TR.
6. POLL, I.: An Analysis of Mixing and Recycle in Propane/Air Combustors, Univ. of Sheffield, Dept. of Chem. Eng. Rept. No. HIC.169. 7. POLL, I.: Design Programming for Gas Phase Combustion Systems, Univ. of Sheffield, Dept. of Chem. Eng. Rept. No. HIC.171. 8. FAETH, G. M. AND LAZAR, R. S.: Bipropellant Droplet Burning Rates and Lifetimes in a Combustion Gas Environment, NASA CR

72622.
9. BRAGG,S. L.: J. Inst. Fuel 36, 12 (1963). 10. SWITHENBANK,J.: A.I.Ch.E.J. 18, 553 (1972). 11. GIAMMAR, R. D. AND PUTNAM, A. A.: Noise Generation by Turbulent Flames, A.G.A., Rept. No. BR-3-5, 1971, 12. SMIT~Z,T. J. B. AND KILHAM, J. K.: J. Acoust. Soe. Am. 35, 715 (1963). 13. PATmCK, M. A.: An Investigation of Some Jet Mixing Problems Related to the Performance of Combustion Systems, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Sheffield, 1965. 14. NURAZZAMAN,A. S. M., SIDDALL,R. G., AND BE~R, J. M.: Chem. Eng. Sci. 26, 1635 (1971). 15. DxxoN, G. T.: Fundamentals of Gas Burner Design, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Sheffield, Nov. 1970. 16. POLL, I.: The Design of Low Noise Gas Burners, Ph.D. thesis. Univ. of Sheffield, 1972.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support of Lycoming-Creare; The Gas Council M.R.S.; The United States Air Force European Office of Aerospace Research; and the National Gas Turbine Establishment. Mr. I. Poll would also like to thank Shell International Petroleum Co. for a personal grant.

COMMENTS
A. M. Mellor, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Ind. Dr. Swithenbank and his colleagues are to be commended for their furthering of our understanding of the mixing process in turbine cornbustors. However, I do not believe that their model could predict successfully the emissions of CO and NO from a combustor. Even if the detailed kinetics could be included in a satis-

COMBUSTION DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS factory way, the predicted emissions would be highly dependent on the volumes chosen for the reactors in the primary and secondary zones. It has generally been found that global models of this type, which can be acceptable from a performance modeling point of view, prove unacceptable for pollution modeling.

637

Authors' Reply. The purpose of our paper was to integrate the fluid dynamic and chemical kinetic aspects of combustors and to show how the overall performance depends on the geometry. We did not consider pollution formation, however the concepts presented are very relevant to pollution modelling since it can easily be shown that unmixedness typically results in an order of magnitude increase in pollutant formation compared to analyses based on average properties. Nevertheless, I agree that precise predictions depend on the volumes of the reactors chosen. It should be emphasized that these volumes are not arbitrary, and (for the case of the well stirred reactors) correspond to the region within which the velocity deviations (jets) decay to negligible energy content.

R. H. Essenhigh, Pennsylvania Stale University, University Park, Pa. In this interesting

addition to the stirred-reactor literature, I would like to commend a point, criticize a point, and attempt to clarify a point. First, on the clarification, I think it would be wise to point out that the phase "W.S.R.," as used previously by Rao, Kuo, and Essenhigh I and by Rao and Essenhigh 2 has a different meaning from the "W.S.R." used in this paper; and, likewise, there is a difference of meaning in the parameter, rD (the mixing delay time). On the basis of our latest results, 3 it now seems that we can properly describe two types of mixing delay, and likewise two different aspects of incomplete mixing; moreover, the difference has long been recognized as a real distinction between macromixing and micromixing. A W.S.R., as characterized by Rao's stirring factor (W), or by the mass transfer Peclet Number (see Ref. 3), is incomplete mixing on the macroscale. This can be represented by the P.S.R. sequenee, with backmix through the reactors. However, the P.S.R.'s, themselves, may not necessarily be completely homogeneous on the microscale, thus creating a second W.S.R. definition. It is then interesting to see that the mixing delay time concept, originated by Vulis,

was then applied by Rao 1,2 to the macroscale W.S.R. mixing, while the present paper has applied it on the microscate. There is, of course, no contradiction here, since we need two quantitative descriptions of "mixing delay," on the macro and the microscale, respectively. I think now we must take care to make clear which scale of mixing delay and W.S.R. we are talking about. On the matter of the criticism, I would like to emphasize one result obtained by Zeinalov et al., ~ that reactor sequences in parallel or reverseparallel were all eliminated in our search for an adequate model sequence. This does not mean to say that the recycle P F R in Fig. 6 of the paper is not an adequate representation of the system of concern; but, without a direct test of the mixing model, e.g., by tracer experiments, the limited evidence is against it. I think the authors will agree that a test by agreement with combustion results is too far removed from the primary assumption to be particularly reliable. On the final point, the significant contribution in this paper is the amplification of the microscale rD, in terms of the turbulence characteristics of the flow. This now provides promise of the start of closing the gap between the essentially phenomenological analyses of the PSR type and the more-mechanistic analyses of the fluid-flow equations. It will be interesting, in the future, to see to what extent the two different methods of analysis may complement (or contradict) each other.

REFERENCES 1. I{Ao, K~o, AND ESSENHIGtt: Proc. 4th Nat. Incin. Conf., p. 314, ASME, 1970. 2. S. T. R. RAo AND R. H. ]~SSENtIIGH:Thirteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, p. 603, The Combustion Institute, 1971. 3. M. A. ZEINALOV, M. KUWATA, AND R. H. ESSENHIGH:This Symposium.

Authors' Reply. I agree with Dr. Essenhigh that macromixing and micromixing should not be confused, and I would like to add that differences between mixing fuel, air, and hot products, and mixing premixed mixture with hot products, require further clarification. I n the former case, if the inhomogeneities are much larger than the scale of the energy-containing eddies, then it appears that we must analyze the system in terms of many stirred reactors in parallel. Such a model readily accounts for the wide combus-

638

FLAMES IN FURNACES AND COMBUSTORS equations. Thus, if we take a very ]arge number of reactors with appropriate interconnections, the model corresponds exactly to a finite-difference analysis of the differential equations, and it follows that there should be no conflict between the two approaches.

tion limits of nozzle-mix burners. Further work on tracer experiments would help to verify these concepts. On your final point, stirred-reactor modelling can be regarded as a coarse-mesh integration of the fluid-flow and chemical-kinetic-differential