.. ..

.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. .
207 Stainbeck Road
Chapel Allerton
Leeds
LS7 2LR

Centre for Combustion and Energy

.Assignment
.
.
. Report
.
.

Laminar Premixed Flame Stability and

Flammability and Burner Design

Geoff Jones
30 March 1998

..
..
..
..
..

Assignment Report
Laminar Premixed Flame Stability and
Flammability and Burner Design
Introduction
In order to design a burner for a certain type of gas, it is necessary to study the
behaviour of the flame produced by that gas, with particular regard to its stability
and flammability. This report presents findings from literature regarding flame
behaviour for gases in general, and specifically with methane-air and hydrogenair flames.
Methane is frequently used, either blended into natural gas (94.81% CH 4 for
North Sea gas [1]) or as the emerging fuel biogas. Thus, burners for methane are
readily available, and much data exist on its characteristics.
Hydrogen is used far less, primarily because it is not found on Earth as a natural
fuel. Indeed, it is most easily synthesised through the electrolysis of water (where
up to a sixth of the products can come from a heat pump effect [7]), and so serves
only as a battery. Being a fluid, it is harder to transmit than the electricity from
which it is created, and so it tends to be used simply as a lighter and more
compact alternative to the lead-acid battery. It may become used more
extensively in the near future, as a fuel for alternative automotive engines (Otto,
Stirling, Wankel or gas turbine) or for fuel cells, as it is a more viable storage
medium in vehicles and avoids the extensive use of lead and sulphuric acid. It is
also used in rockets, when it is mixed with oxygen.

General Considerations
In order to sustain a flame on a burner, the flame must initially ignite, and then
must generate sufficient heat to allow the combustion chain reaction to propagate.
The reactant flow rate must also be such that the flame produced is stable, and
will not blow off the burner or flash back into the reactant mixture.
Some gases are interchangeable with one another. Two gases will be described as
interchangeable [1] if:
1. the flame is stable (no lift-off or light-back),
2. no significant CO or soot is formed,
3. the heat output is reasonably constant & ignition satisfactory.
Flame stability is best defined by means of a FUIDGE diagram [2], although such
data are scarce.

The criterion for low CO and soot pollutants is generally true for most pure
hydrocarbons and for hydrogen, provided that the mixture is near stoichiometric,
as would be the case in a properly premixed flame, or slightly lean.
The comparative heat output from a burner with alternative gases is generally
expressed as the Wobbe number or Wobbe index [1]. This is defined as the gross
calorific value divided by the square root of the specific gravity (with respect to
air) of the fuel.
The ease of ignition can be defined by the electrical current which needs to be
passed through the mixture to create a flame [3].

Flame Stability
A stable flame is one which will remain almost stationary at a burner outlet when
the reactant mixture and flow rate is held constant.
The above condition will not be the case if the flow rate of the reactant is too low.
This means that the gases combust too readily, causing the flame to propagate
against the flow, and creating flash-back conditions. In certain circumstances, this
can have disastrous results, if an explosive mixture is thus created in a confined
space.
The flame will also be unstable if the reactant flow rate is too high. This then
results in the flames inability to maintain its position, and blow-off occurs. The
entrainment of air from the surroundings will then weaken the mixture.
Flame stability can be best described by a fuidge diagram. Such a diagram is
reproduced in Figure 1 [1]:

Figure 1 - Fuidge Stability Diagram for Methane and Coal Gas

This shows, for methane and for coal gas, the conditions under which light back
and lift off occur. It also shows the conditions for yellow tipping of the flame,
where the mixture is rich, and produces soot.

The light back and lift off conditions can be predicted to a degree by considering
the geometry of a flame. If we assume that the inner cone of a flame on a round
burner is indeed conical, we can define its geometry (in much the same manner as
Gouys method predicts the burning velocity) as in Figure 2. In this diagram, we
can determine if the flow speed and burning velocity are known.
Su

sin 1

If we then set very approximate allowable limits of , we can estimate the range
of stability of the flame. Flames are rarely observed which are flatter than =40,
so we shall use that as the flash-back limit. When can be considered a small
angle, we shall achieve lift-off conditions. It is therefore reasonable to set =10
as our limit.

Su

Figure 2 - Burner Flame Geometry

We know Su, the burning velocity, from tables of data, and so we can then find
the critical flow speeds, according to the relationship:
v

Su
sin

An alternative approach is defined in the literature [5], simply stating:

2 Su v 5Su
Using the other method, this equates to

12 30
Note that these results do not appear to coincide with those shown on the fuidge
diagram (Figure 1) for a stoichiometric air-fuel ratio (9.52 [4]). Here, we see that
the blow-off and flash-back conditions are almost coincident at a port loading of
0.55 kJ cm-2 s-2 = 5.5106 J m-2 s-1. Using a calorific value of 39.8 MJ m-3 [4], this
gives a flow speed of 0.14 m s-1. This is less than the burning velocities which are
commonly quoted (0.45 m s-1), meaning that it is likely to be an under-estimate of
the speed. Part of this discrepancy may also be due to the reduction of burning
velocity due to the heat sink action of the burner itself, a factor which is generally
avoided in the finding of burning velocities.

The burning velocity of a hydrogen-air flame is about 8 times faster than that of
the methane-air flame, at about 3.5 m s-1 [1]. Thus, if reactants for a hydrogen
flame were to be supplied to a methane burner at the same speed as that at which
a methane flame is sustained, the flame would not be stable due to blow-off.
Some degree of stabilisation of flames under blow-off conditions is possible,
using either a cone stabiliser, which effectively reduces the flow speed by
spreading it over a wider area, or by introducing turbulence, a means which is
beyond the scope of this report.

Flammability
Data were found showing the flammability limits of both hydrogen and methane
[1]
. These area presented in Table 1.

CH4
H2

Lower flammability
limit / % by vol.
5.0
4.0

Upper flammability
limit / % by vol.
15.0
75.0

Table 1 - Flammability Limits of Hydrogen and Methane

Here, we see that while the lower flammability limits are comparable for these
two fuels, the upper limits are very different. However, this presentation of the
figures is perhaps a little misleading, as the stoichiometric ratios for the fuels are
different (AFR 9.52 for methane and 2.38 for hydrogen [4], corresponding to 9.5%
and 29.6% respectively). Thus, we see that, while methane requires a mixture
near to stoichiometric, hydrogen can burn in lean and rich mixtures alike.
Therefore, while methane burners must control the ratio reasonably effectively,
hydrogen burners can be built to far lower tolerances and still sustain a flame.
The adiabatic flame temperatures [5] and auto-ignition temperatures [1] are
presented in Table 2.

CH4
H2

Adiabatic Flame
Temperature / K
2222
2380

Auto-Ignition
Temperature / K
813
673

Table 2 - Adiabatic Flame Temperatures and Auto-Ignition Flame Temperatures for the
Methane-Air and Hydrogen-Air Flames

We see that, while methane-air flames might be slightly more susceptible to

extinction through quenching, neither flame is likely to suffer this through simple
poor burner design, and both should propagate freely.

Burner Size
There exists for a particular combustant a minimum size of tube in which
combustion can take place. This places a minimum limit on the size of burner
outlet which may be used for a flame. The minimum diameters [5] are shown in
Table 3.

CH4
H2

Minimum Diameter / mm
3.9
0.9

Table 3 - Minimum Burner Diameters to Sustain a Flame

Now, as we can achieve higher flow rates using small diameter holes, it is
beneficial to use burner jets near to these limits. Noting that methane requires a
larger jet, we see that a burner designed for hydrogen would not support a
methane flame, even if the flow rates were adjusted to compensate for their
different properties, although a hydrogen flame could exist on a methane jet.

Ignition
While the above section looks at the auto-ignition temperature and adiabatic
temperature to see if the flames are sustainable, at any temperature below that of
auto-ignition, it is necessary to introduce a discharge of energy into the reactants
in order to start the process. This is ignition.
The discharge required to cause ignition is frequently expressed as the electrical
current which needs to be passed through the reactants in order to start the chain
reaction. Data for the values of these tend to have a large scatter, but Table 4
shows figures [3] which appear to be in reasonable agreement with most other
sources. This gives very similar (within the accuracy of the measurements) values
for the two gases.

CH4
H2

Minimum ac
Current / A
0.6
0.4

Minimum dc
Current / A
1
1

Table 4 - Least Igniting Currents for Methane and Hydrogen in Air

Other Design Considerations

In designing a burner, one must also take note of other chemical and physical
properties of the fuel in use.
Particularly, any reactions with tubes and the burner itself must be avoided. Here,
we should note that hydrogen reacts with many metals, causing embrittlement [6].
When dealing with hydrogen, care needs to be taken to ensure that there are no
leaks in the system. Due to the hydrogen molecules small size, it will permeate
through containers which most other gases would not.
Should flash-back conditions occur (as might be the case with a reduction of the
air supply), steps need to be in place to avoid propagation into vessels which
could explode. This can easily be achieved by passing the gases through fine
mesh, with a maximum hole size less than the minimum required for a flame.
Note that a trap of this kind designed for methane would probably not work for
hydrogen.

Interchangeability
On page 2, interchangeability was defined. Therefore, this acts as a reasonable
means of comparing the methane-air flame and the hydrogen-air flame.
Firstly, the two flames are not stable under the same conditions. Their very
different burning velocities (0.45 m s-1 and 3.5 m s-1) create different stable flame
speeds. The hydrogen-air flame can be sustained at the same mixtures as the
methane-air flame, but the reverse is far from true.
Next, neither flame creates significant CO or soot at stoichiometric or weak
mixtures; hydrogen will never form either product.
Finally, the heat outputs differ. The Wobbe numbers for the fuels are respectively
74.7 MJ kg-3 and 538 MJ kg-3 for methane and hydrogen. Thus, if the flame could
be sustained, a hydrogen flame on the same burner at the same pressure as a
methane flame would produce 7 times the heat. Both gases require roughly the
same electrical discharge to start combustion.
Hydrogens low density creates storage problems, particularly for automotive
applications. One solution which has been found is to bind the hydrogen to
another substance to create a hydride, such as methane [6].

Conclusion
The report looks at the stability of premixed laminar flames. The conditions in
which instability occurs are shown, with particular reference to the methane-air
and hydrogen-air flames.
The methane-air and hydrogen-air flames were shown to have differences in their
characteristics which would negate the possibility of using the two
interchangeably. Rather, hydrogen would require a greater number of smaller
diameter jets operating with greater reactant flow speeds. The mixture for the
methane flame requires stricter regulation than that for hydrogen.

References
[1] Norman Chigier, Energy and Combustion Science, Student Edition 1, Pergamon,
1979
[2] A C McIntosh, Laboratory Manual, MSc Course in Combustion and Energy,
University of Leeds, 1997
[3] William A Bone and Donald T A Townend, Flame and Combustion in Gases,
Longmans, 1927
[4] Peter D Osborne, Handbook of Energy Data and Calculations, Butterworths, 1985
[5] J F Griffiths and J A Barnard, Flame and Combustion, Third Edition, Blackie, 1995
[6] Don Lancaster, Tech Musings, August 1997,
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse115.pdf
[7] Don Lancaster, Tech Musings, August 1997,
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse119.pdf