Flame Lift-off and Stabilization Mechanisms of Nonpremixed

Jet Flames on a Bluff-body Burner

YUNG-CHENG CHEN,* CHIA-CHI CHANG, KUO-LONG PAN,
and JING-TANG YANG
Department of Power Mechanical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University,
Hsinchu 30043, Taiwan, Republic of China

A detailed regime diagram for bluff-body stabilized flames is proposed for the flame lift-off and stabilization
limits. At low fuel velocities, the flame structure is classified into three stable modes: recirculation zone flames,
jet-dominated flames, and jet-like flames according to the velocity ratio of annular to central jets. Two different
flame stability limits can be identified between cold and combusting recirculation zones. For the former case,
local flame extinction dominates lifting of the jet-like flames due to a strong interaction between the
recirculating air flows and the jet flame front. A critical annulus Reynolds number is found at which the jet-like
flame is least probable to lift off, whereas, for the latter case, partial quenching of the blue neck flame in
jet-dominated flames is retarded due to the presence of a reignition source, the combusting recirculation zone.
Thus, flame stability can be improved. It is further shown that stabilization of lifted flames is more sensitive to
the co-flow air than the fuel jet velocity at the inception of flame lift-off, indicating the importance of diffusion
flamelet quenching. At high fuel velocities, the annular air flows have little effect on the lift-off heights and
premixed flame propagation becomes dominating. In the hysteresis region, the base of lifted flames is elevated
with decreasing fuel velocities and the circular ring-shaped premixed flame in the leading front becomes more
fragmented. When approaching the maximum lift-off height, the flame base consists mainly of separated,
broken flamelets, suggesting an inhomogeneous fuel/air premixing, due to interaction with large-scale vortical
structures. Some isolated flamelets with an arrow-headed structure, typical for a triple flame, can be observed
at the flame stabilization position. 1998 by The Combustion Institute

INTRODUCTION annular air streams. However, the currently

The bluff body is a basic device to stabilize
double concentric jet diffusion flames in indus-
trial burners, for reasons of safety and easy
implementation. It is desirable [1] that the
annular air flows entrain part of the central fuel
jet into a low-speed recirculation region in the
wake of the bluff body to form a well-stirred
combustible mixture for flame stabilization pur-
pose. Thus, a stable pilot flame is created near
the burner exit and serves as a continual ignition
source to prevent the downstream stoichiomet-
ric, or even lean, nonpremixed flames from
direct blow-out. Previous investigations on dou-
ble concentric jet burners with a circular bluff
body at the annulus exit [2 8] have shown the
flame structure to be very complex and of
various patterns. The underlying combustion
mechanisms depend strongly on the hydrody-
namic interactions between the fuel jet and the
*Corresponding author. Present address: Department of
Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of
Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
COMBUSTION AND FLAME 115:51 65 (1998)
1998 by The Combustion Institute
Published by Elsevier Science Inc.
proposed combustion regime diagrams for this
type of burner are either incomplete [2, 6, 7] or
reliant solely on observation of the flame ap-
pearance [8]. A recent study has identified the
basic modes of bluff-body stabilized flames
based on the air-to-jet velocity ratios [9], in
accordance with the proposed classification in
nonreacting [3, 10], as well as reacting [8, 11]
flows. This paper extends the previous work in
Ref. 9 and aims to investigate systematically the
underlying combustion mechanisms, especially
regarding flame stability, of the characteristic
flame modes in a bluff-body burner. A detailed
regime diagram is provided here for the differ-
ent combustion modes of bluff-body stabilized
flames.
One of the major considerations in burner
design is the improvement of flame stabiliza-
tion: the lift-off and blow-out limits. Three
distinct types of lifting mechanisms have been
observed for burner-rim-attached flames in a
double concentric burner [6]: I. direct lifting
from burner exit, II. local flame extinction lift-
ing, and III. lean-limit extinction lifting. Types
0010-2180/98/$19.00
PII S0010-2180(97)00336-2
52
II and III are found to dominate for a straight
fuel tube with a thick wall. This type of burner
configuration is analogous to the bluff-body
burner with a large blockage ratio at the annu-
lus exit. The flow field in the near burner zone is
characterized by large-scale structures in a re-
circulation bubble. The role of recirculation
zones on flame stability limits will be examined
and discussed with regard to the above-men-
tioned lifting mechanisms. On the other hand,
the currently proposed physical mechanisms for
stabilization of lifted flames have also been
assessed and summarized as [12]: premixed
flame propagation [13, 14], quenching of diffu-
sion flamelets [15], extinction of premixed
flames [16], and large-scale eddy controlled
flamelet ignition/propagation [1719]. Recently,
experiments based on two-dimensional imaging
techniques have shed more light on the under-
lying mechanisms of stabilization of lifted
flames [20, 21]. The results show that the stabi-
lization region of simple lifted flames without
co-flowing air is more premixed in nature,
rather than diffusion-controlled [21]. Both
large-scale eddy movement, which may provide
hot combustion products for ignition, and fuel/
air premixing at the molecule level are the
controlling mechanisms. Direct numerical sim-
ulations have also found that the base of a lifted
flame attaches to the inner shear layer of the
KelvinHelmholtz type vortical structure along
the stoichiometric surface [22]. In view of the
local nature of extinction/ignition phenomena
intrinsic in flame stabilization mechanisms, it is
very likely that all the proposed theories could
be valid to a certain extent, depending on the
local flame surface/flow field interactions. Dif-
ferent flame blow-out limits exist indeed for the
present bluff-body burner. The appropriate
conditions for the corresponding stabilization
mechanisms will be discussed in this paper.
Hysteresis behavior of lifted flames has been
frequently observed for jet diffusion flames with
no co-flow air [19, 2325]. It has been argued
that organized coherent structures of the
KelvinHelmholtz type inside the fuel jet dom-
inate flame reattachment in the hysteresis re-
gion [24]. Based on phase-averaged measure-
ments [19], strong air entrainment at relatively
high velocity induced by the vortical structure
has been observed, which may be responsible
Y.-C. CHEN ET AL.
for the obstruction of the upstream flame prop-
agation. The lift-off height is shown to coincide
with the vortex roll-up or pairing positions. In
addition to the large-scale fuel/air mixing struc-
tures inherent in the bluff-body burner, isolated
flamelets with a triple flame appearance are
observed in the base of lifted flames stabilized
on a bluff body in the hysteresis region. An early
study of triple flames [26] has shown the com-
plexity of this flame structure, developed in an
inhomogeneous mixing field. Two premixed
flames are created along the propagating flame
front, lean on one side and rich on the other side.
A third diffusion flame can be formed from the
joint stoichiometric point with a long tail extended
to downstream positions. An interesting property
of the triple flame structure is that its propagation
velocity is much higher than the laminar burning
velocity of a stoichiometric mixture [26, 27] and
decreases with increasing scalar dissipation
rates [27, 28]. Recent analytical and numeri-
cal studies attempt to understand triple flame
behavior in the context of laminar flame struc-
ture [27, 29 31]. It is further considered that
such a flame structure can exist during flame
propagation along the stoichiometric surface
in lifted turbulent nonpremixed flames, thus
acting as a stabilizing flame structure. Its
important role in flame reattachment in the
hysteresis region will also be discussed.
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
The configuration of the double concentric
burner employed is shown schematically in Fig.
1. At the burner exit, a 5-mm-thick circular disc
around the central fuel tube is used as the bluff
body. The disc diameter D b is variable between
30, 35, 40, and 45 mm, while the inner diameter
of the annular air tube D a is kept constant at
55.1 mm. The corresponding air flow blockage
ratios, defined as (D b /D a ) 2 , are 0.296, 0.403,
0.527, and 0.667, respectively. Three layers of
stainless steel mesh upstream in the annulus
inlet straightened the air flow. The central tube
is 60 cm long and 3.5 mm in inner diameter
(l/D f ' 170) to ensure a fully developed tur-
bulent pipe flow at the burner exit. The fuel
supply was connected directly to a commercial
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinder
(53.81% propane and 44.49% butane). The
FLAME LIFT-OFF IN BLUFF-BODY STABILIZED FLAMES
Fig. 1. Double concentric burner. The circular disc
mounted at the annulus exit serves as a bluff body.
Diameters Db varied between 45, 40, 35, and 30 mm.
Mean OH image of a lifted nonpremixed jet flame shows
lift-off height, Hlift.
burner was placed in a still-air environment and
protected with a fine-wire mesh screen from any
outside turbulence perturbation.
Initial cold flow conditions were first exam-
ined with a hot wire at different averaged exit
velocities U a based on the annular air flow rates.
Figure 2 shows the measured mean (U # ) and rms
(u9) axial velocities normalized by U a and U #,
respectively, at the burner exit. Both the U # /U a
and u9/U # radial profiles collapse to similar
distributions for U a 5 2.76 and 5.23 m/s. The
unusually high turbulence intensity near the exit
boundary is probably due to velocity oscillations
associated with flow separation at the upstream
corner of the disc. Turbulence levels (u9/U # ) at
53
Fig. 2. Normalized radial profiles of mean, U # , and rms, u9,
axial velocities at annulus exit for U a 5 2.76 and 5.23 m/s
for 45-mm bluff body. R is bluff-body radius. Shaded lines
indicate bluff body and annulus wall region.
the center of both openings are about 10% for the
fuel and 5% for the air stream. Downstream flow
velocities were measured with a two-component
backward-scattering laser Doppler velocimetry
(LDV) system (TSI), mounted on a precision
traversing table. The resolution in both the axial,
x, and radial, r, directions is 0.02 mm. Al2O3 seed
of about 1 mm diameter was used in the annulus;
while for the fuel jet, TiO2 seed of 0.2 to 1 mm
diameter was used.
The mean and instantaneous structure at the
base of lifted flames were registered with color
slides (exposure time 1 to 4 s) and video tapes (30
frames/s, exposure time 1/125 s), respectively. The
mean lift-off heights are determined from the
time-averaged slide images. Instantaneous lift-off
heights are examined by the individual video
images. Their fluctuations are found to be within
58% of the mean lift-off height. In the hysteresis
region, higher fluctuations of 1015% are found.
Comparison of the mean lift-off heights with
those from the (laser-induced fluorescence)
LIF-OH images in a previous study [9] shows
good agreements. Consecutive shadowgraph
images (30 frames/s, exposure time 1/100 s)
were also taken to visualize the large-scale
structures in the flow field.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Combustion Diagram for Bluff-body
Stabilized Flames
Figure 3 shows the different regimes for bluff-
body stabilized nonpremixed flames with an
54
Fig. 3. Combustion diagram for bluff-body burner at annu-
lus blockage ratio of 0.667. Regime I: recirculation zone flame.
Regime II: central-jet dominated flame. Regime III: jet-like
flame. Regime IV: partially quenched flame. Regime V: lifted
flame. Dashed line and open squares represent reattachment
and blow-out limits of lifted flames in hysteresis region. Off-set
air velocity Ua,o indicated by arrow.
annulus blockage ratio of 0.667 (45 mm disc
diameter). The regime diagrams for the other
three bluff bodies are qualitatively the same.
More details can be found in [32]. Although the
general features of Fig. 3 are consistent with a
recently proposed diagram [8], it is intended
here to identify the underlying combustion
mechanism of the various flame modes on a
bluff-body burner.
Basically, flame stability is not a critical phe-
nomenon when the central fuel jet velocity is
relatively low (,10 m/s in this case). This im-
plies a much larger characteristic flow time than
the chemical one, or equivalently, a large
Damkohler number. The flame behavior is
therefore mainly controlled by the hydrody-
namic flow field conditions, in particular the
parameter g [ (U a 2 U a,o )/U f , defined as the
averaged velocity ratio between the air and fuel
streams based on the flow rates. In this expres-
sion U a,o is an offset air velocity, determined by
intersecting the linear boundary between Re-
gimes II and III with the U a axis, shown by an
arrow in Fig. 3. It represents physically the limit
below which the annular air flows are too weak
to modify the central jet flames, due to the lack
of a closed recirculation bubble behind the bluff
Y.-C. CHEN ET AL.
body [4, 33]. Three characteristic stable flame
modes can be found in Fig. 3 by varying the g
parameter: recirculation zone flames, central-
jet dominated flames, and jet-like flames. The
typical flame appearance is shown by the color
photographs in Fig. 4. When the fuel jet mo-
mentum is too weak to overcome that of the
reverse air flows in the recirculation bubble,
formation of a stable jet flame is impossible and
all the fuel mass will be retained behind the
bluff body to form a recirculation zone flame
(Regime I), shown in Fig. 4a. However, the
instantaneous flow field in the zone near the
burner can be very irregular and shows large-
scale structures of erratic turbulent mixing. Sim-
ilar to previous investigations, two well-struc-
tured vortices with the corresponding aft (air)
and forward (fuel) stagnation points can only be
found on a mean basis [5] or in low-speed
laminar conditions [3]. The recirculated region
flames, transition flames, and unsteady de-
tached flames observed elsewhere [8] belong to
this regime, whereas the main reaction zones in
the air (outer) vortex are gradually shifted to
the downstream end of the recirculation bubble.
When the fuel jet has a much higher momentum
than that of the recirculating air flows, the fuel
(inner) vortex may no longer exist behind the
bluff body and part of the annular air flows can
even be entrained downstream into the jet
stream. This can be seen from a typical time-
averaged velocity vector plot in Fig. 5 for U a 5
1.37 m/s and U f 5 4.1 m/s. The characteristic
mean flow field behind the bluff body is domi-
nated by the air vortex, where insufficient fuel
mass can be captured to reach the lean flamma-
bility limit. Thus, the flame appears jet-like
(Regime III), as shown in Fig. 4c. An analogue
can also be found between flames in this regime
and the attached flames observed on a double
concentric burner with a large lip thickness of
the central fuel tube [6]. When the fuel jet and
annular air momenta are comparable, a central-
jet dominated flame (Regime II) can be devel-
oped. Combustion occurs both in the recircula-
tion zone and further downstream along the
axial axis, as is shown in Fig. 4b. Similar to a
previous observation [2], this flame mode is
characterized by a blue neck flame downstream
of the recirculation zone flames. The reported
puffing noise [8] can also be found in a
FLAME LIFT-OFF IN BLUFF-BODY STABILIZED FLAMES 55

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 4. Typical color photographs of three stable flame modes at low central fuel velocity with annulus blockage ratio of 0.667.
(a) Recirculation zone flame (g 5 2.7); (b) central-jet dominated flame (g 5 0.67); (c) jet-like flame (g 5 0.1).
56 Y.-C. CHEN ET AL.

Fig. 13. Instantaneous flame structure (exposure time 1/125

s) showing fragmentation of circular ring-shaped flame front
at base of lifted flame for U a 5 1.37 m/s and U f 5 10 m/s.
D b 5 45 mm.

Fig. 14. Typical video images (exposure time 1/125 s) of

flame base of lifted flame in hysteresis region for U a 5 1.37
m/s and U f 5 4 m/s. D b 5 45 mm.
FLAME LIFT-OFF IN BLUFF-BODY STABILIZED FLAMES
Fig. 5. Time-averaged velocity vector plot of a jet-like flame
in Regime III for U a 5 1.37 m/s and U f 5 4.1 m/s. D is
bluff-body diameter, R is radius. Contours show stream-
lines, from which the location of an air vortex is resolved.
transition region between regimes of recircula-
tion zone flames and jet-dominated flames. This
phenomenon is attributed to the strong interac-
tions between flame sheet and the neighboring
fuel vortex when the jet flame is partially pene-
trating the recirculation zone flame.
The dominating effect of the g parameter on
the bluff-body stabilized flames can be further
justified in the light of Fig. 3. Except at very low
fuel and air velocities in the laminar and tran-
sition regions [4], two almost constant g values
can be found. These, respectively, represent the
boundaries between the recirculation zone
flame and the jet-dominated flame ( g u -limit)
and those between the jet-dominated flame and
the jet-like flame ( g l -limit). The importance of
57
Fig. 6. Dependence of g l - and g u -limits on normalized
bluff-body diameter, D b /D a . These two limiting values are
used to separate recirculation zone flame (Regime I),
central-jet dominated flame (Regime II), and jet-like flame
(Regime III) at low air and fuel velocities. Data from [3], [8,
34], and [5, 10] are shown for comparison. Open symbols
represent data of nonreacting flows; closed symbols those of
reacting flows.
g as a pure hydrodynamic parameter can be
understood by the flow structure in the recircu-
lation bubble being dominated by turbulent
transport. The dependency of both g-limits on
the normalized bluff-body diameter, D b /D a , is
shown in Fig. 6, where the mean values of g are
obtained along the linear regime boundaries.
The g u -limit occurs when the jet flame can
totally penetrate the recirculation zone flame.
The value of g u increases very quickly with
decrease in D b . This is because the size of the
recirculation bubble scales with the bluff-body
diameter, so that a smaller U f (smaller central
jet momentum) is sufficient for the central jet
flame to penetrate a smaller recirculation zone
flame. The g l -limit is that at which the air vortex
attains the lean flammability limit. The value of
g l decreases only slightly as D b increases. This
implies that the enhanced fuel entrainment
ability of a larger air vortex is more or less
balanced by the increased air flow rate behind
the bluff body. However, when a larger bluff
body is used, a lower air velocity is sufficient to
bring about combustion in the recirculation
zone. Flame stability can thus be improved, as
will be discussed in the next section. In compar-
ison with other published data in Fig. 6, the g
parameter is multiplied by ( r a / r f ) 0.5 to form the
square root of the momentum ratio. Good
agreements in reacting flows [5, 8] have been
58
obtained based on the D b /D a , rather than the
D f /D b parameter [4]. This is probably because
the fuel jet diameter is of the same order in
these cases. The slightly lower g u -limit in non-
reacting flows [3, 10, 34] may be due to the
laminarization effect in combusting flows, so
that turbulent transport between the recircula-
tion bubble and jet streams is reduced and jet
penetration facilitated.
Both the central-jet dominated flames and
the jet-like flames become unsteady when the
fuel jet velocity exceeds a certain limit. The
jet-like flames (Regime III) can be lifted sud-
denly to a much higher axial position down-
stream of the recirculation bubble (Regime V),
or even blown out directly with a smaller bluff
body. This sudden jump is also observed for an
attached jet flame lifted from a straight tube of
large lip thickness [6]. As for the central-jet
dominated flames (Regime II), the blue neck
flame between the downstream jet and the
recirculation zone flames begins to be partially
quenched temporarily before reignition. This
partially quenched flame (Regime IV) has also
the reported flame puffing behavior close to
the flame blow-out limit [2]. Due to different
combustion mechanisms of the jet-like flames in
Regime III and the central-jet dominated
flames in Regime II, the lifted flames in Regime
V can only evolve from the former, while the
partially quenched flames in Regime IV directly
succeed the latter. Their stability behavior is
discussed more thoroughly in the next section.
Both the lifted and the partially quenched
flames would be blown out if the fuel velocity
were to increase further.
Hysteresis behavior can only be observed for
the lifted flames with a nonreacting recircula-
tion bubble. When the fuel velocity of a lifted
flame in Regime V is reduced at a constant air
velocity, flame reattachment occurs at a smaller
fuel velocity (shown by the dashed line in Fig. 3)
than that for flame lift-off. For an air velocity
higher than ;1.7 m/s, the lifted flames can
never reattach, but blow out directly. This blow-
out limit (shown by open squares in Fig. 3)
corresponds roughly to the limit at which burn-
ing is about to occur in the recirculation bubble
(between Regimes II and III). This unstable
limit has also been observed in [8].
Y.-C. CHEN ET AL.
Role of Recirculation Zones on Flame
Stabilization
Two major types of unsteady flames are ob-
served in the bluff-body burner before flame
blow-out occurs. They are the lifted flames
(Regime V) and the partially quenched flames
(Regime IV), characterized by the burning con-
dition of the recirculation bubble behind the
bluff body. A third type of unsteady flame in the
hysteresis region will be discussed in the next
section.
When the air velocity is less than ;3.4 m/s, as
shown in Fig. 3, there exists a distinct fuel
lift-off velocity, U lift , above which the jet-like
flame (Regime III) changes to a lifted flame
(Regime V) abruptly. A maximum value of U lift
5 21 m/s can be found in Fig. 3 at U a 5 1.3 m/s
at which the jet-like flame is most difficult to lift
off. For both higher and lower air velocities,
U lift decreases. The existence of such a charac-
teristic point between attached and lifted flames
has also been observed by others [6, 8]. To
demonstrate this sudden lift-off behavior, pho-
tographs of consecutive shadowgraph images
are shown in Fig. 7 for a jet-like flame during
the transition to a lifted flame. It was found that
flame lift-off begins with a flame local extinction
at the position where the outer shear layer of
the recirculating air merges with the central jet
flame front. A hole can thus be created along
the flame surface in Fig. 7a. This local extinction
results in an unsteady split flame in Fig. 7b d
before flame lift-off is completed in Fig. 7e,
since the hole area grows very quickly in both
the upstream and downstream directions.
The mechanism of local extinction has been
found to be initiated by the radially outward
movement of large-scale fuel vortices in the jet
transition region where the azimuthal instability
plays an important role, several jet diameters
downstream [35]. If the nearby flame fronts are
quenched by these fuel-rich parcels prior to
quenching at the burner rim due to pipe-flow
turbulence, a split flame can be formed [25, 36].
This flame lift-off mechanism has been ascribed
to local flame extinction lifting, Type II in Ref.
6. However, the observed split flame in Fig. 7 is
formed mainly by a local extinction due to the
strong interaction between the entrained air
flow and the fuel jet stream around the down-
FLAME LIFT-OFF IN BLUFF-BODY STABILIZED FLAMES 59

Fig. 7. Photographs of consecutive shadowgraph images (exposure time 1/100 s), from (a) to (e), of a jet-like flame (U a 5 1.938 m/s) during transition to lifted flame.

Fig. 8. Mean axial and rms velocity profiles along centerline

for jet-like flame: U a 5 1.37 m/s and U f 5 4.1 m/s.
Bluff-body diameter D b is 35 mm.

stream end of the recirculation bubble. This is

supported by the LDV measurements, shown in
Fig. 8. A local maximum of the axial velocity
fluctuation u9 exists at around x/D b ' 0.8 to
1.0, indicative of the strong air vortex/flame
front interaction for a jet-like flame for the
same conditions as in Fig. 5. Once the local
diffusion flame front is extinguished by the high
turbulence there, it is more difficult to recover a
continuous reaction zone than to create an
abrupt jump in the flame base shown in Fig. 7.
This can be explained by the S-curve which
describes the flame temperature variation with
Da number, the characteristic turbulent time
over the chemical time. It implies that flame
extinction occurs most probably at the neck
region with a smaller turbulent time (larger
velocity fluctuations in Fig. 8), while flame
reignition, in need of smaller velocity fluctua-
tions, is less likely. Since the recirculating air
flows behind the bluff body provide a source of
strong turbulent mixing, the bottom part of the
split flame can also be extinguished very quickly,
leaving only a lifted flame stabilized further
downstream of the recirculation bubble, shown
in Fig. 7e. This abrupt jump in the flame base
can be seen clearly in Fig. 9. The lift-off height,
H lift , of a jet-like flame becomes greater than
D b 5 45 mm when the fuel velocity slightly
exceeds the corresponding value of U lift . In
contrast, the pure jet flame created by shutting
off the air stream shows an almost linear rela-
tionship between H lift /D b and U f , as expected.
The argument of a strong interaction between
the entrained air flows and the jet flame front
60
Fig. 9. Lift-off heights, H lift , for pure jet flame (U a 5 0 m/s)
and jet-like flame (U a 5 1.03 m/s) with D b 5 45 mm. Open
squares represent lift-off height in hysteresis region. Fuel
lift-off velocity of this jet-like flame is 20 m/s.
also provides reasonable explanations for the
existence of the optimal operating point, men-
tioned previously. In cold flow fields with zero
central jet velocity, previous investigations [4,
37] have shown that the dimensionless recircu-
lation zone length, L r /D b , increases with U a at
low Reynolds numbers corresponding to the
flame lift-off conditions in Regimes III and V in
Fig. 3. A further increase of U a may reduce
L r /D b slightly, until finally a constant value of
L r /D b is attained. Similar behavior was also
found for jet-penetration conditions with a fixed
central jet velocity [33]. Since the jet-like flame
also has a nonreacting recirculation bubble, one
might anticipate a critical annular exit velocity
U a,c at which the jet-like flame reaches a max-
imum recirculation zone length. The variations
of central jet momenta may have little effect on
L r , in that continuous flame fronts may impair
the momentum transfer between the fuel jet
and the recirculating air flows. Hence, for U a ,
U a,c , the recirculation zone length increases
with air velocity at a constant bluff-body size.
The point of local extinction can then be shifted
to a downstream position where the local flame-
let has a smaller scalar dissipation rate. Flame
quenching can thus be possible only at a higher
fuel jet velocity. For U a . U a,c , the recircula-
tion zone size remains almost unchanged and
local extinction occurs at the same position. A
higher annular air velocity implies a higher local
strain rate, which in turn causes flame extinction
Y.-C. CHEN ET AL.
Fig. 10. Dependence of the critical lift-off height, H c , on air
velocity, U a with bluff-body diameter D b 5 45 mm. Corre-
sponding fuel lift-off velocity U lift is also plotted. Dashed
line indicates lift-off velocity of pure jet flame at 13 m/s.
at a smaller fuel velocity. Between the four bluff
bodies used in this work, the critical annular exit
velocity U a,c decreases with decreasing D b . This
is also consistent with the observation in cold
flow fields that L r /D b increases with decreasing
disc diameter [38], since an increase in (D a 2
D b ) will delay the decay of the maximum veloc-
ity in the annular jet and thus have a similar
effect as an increase in U a to reach a maximum
recirculation zone length. This allows a defini-
tion of the annular Reynolds number Re a [
U a (D a 2 D b )/ n a with a constant Re a,c ; 867,
which agrees well with values of 845 obtained in
methane flames [6] and 833 in propane flames
[8]. The insensitivity of this critical Reynolds
number Re a,c to various fuels is because the size
of recirculation zones behind the bluff body
depends mainly on the annular Reynolds num-
ber and in turn determines the position of local
extinction. However, the corresponding fuel lift-
off velocity U lift 5 21 m/s is larger than 18 m/s
for methane flames [6] and less than 25 m/s for
propane flames [8] due to the different chemical
times.
Since the flame base of the lifted flame
immediately after the sudden jump can be cor-
related with the recirculation zone length, L r ,
one may define a critical lift-off height, H c , at
the inception of flame lift-off. In Fig. 9, it is the
lift-off height where the solid and open squares
join. The dependency of H c on the annular air
exit velocity is plotted in Fig. 10 to examine how
L r varies with U a . The linear increase of H c with
U a at a constant bluff-body diameter D b 5 45
FLAME LIFT-OFF IN BLUFF-BODY STABILIZED FLAMES 61

mm supports the view that the dimensionless

recirculation zone length L r /D b of a jet-like
flame increases with Re a for Re a , Re a,c . At
higher air velocities, however, H c still increases
with U a , but is independent of U f . This suggests
that the stabilization of a lifted flame is more
subject to the co-flow air rather than the fuel
velocity. Both premixed flame propagation and
diffusion flamelet quenching could be responsi-
ble for lifted flame stabilization at such elevated
axial positions [39]. The early shift of the lifting
velocity for the pure jet flame (U a 5 0 m/s)
from 13 m/s to 7 m/s can be attributed to the
ultrasensitivity of flame lift-off behavior to the Fig. 11. Variation of lift-off height, H lift , with fuel exit
small-scale turbulence at the burner exit [25, velocity, U f , at various air velocities, U a . Bluff-body diam-
36]. eter is 45 mm. Open symbols represent hysteresis regions.
The onset of flame lift-off in a bluff-body
burner is due to strong interaction between the
cold recirculating air flows and flame fronts. However, this implies a narrower range of g for
Thus, a combusting recirculation bubble would the existence of jet-dominated flames.
More detailed analysis of the flame structure
promote better stabilization limits than does a
in the jet-dominated flames [32] indicates that if
nonreacting one, as can be interpreted from Fig.
g is large enough, a high temperature region can
3. For jet-like flames in Regime III, both the
be maintained at the downstream end of the
lift-off and the lower branch of the blow-out
recirculation bubble, and this is responsible for
limits of fuel velocities decrease very quickly as
keeping the jet-dominated flames stable. Thus,
U a increases. Operation in Regime II of the
quenching of the blue neck flame shown in Fig.
jet-dominated flames at higher fuel velocities
4b is impossible. This high-temperature region,
can produce stable flames even at relatively high
however, moves upstream towards the bluff-
air velocities. In principle, the transition from a
body surface as g is decreased. This explains the
jet-dominated flame to a partially quenched transition from the jet-dominated flame (Re-
flame is similar to the lift-off of a jet-like flame gime II) to the partially quenched flame (Re-
with regard to local extinction at the down- gime IV) with increasing fuel velocity. Flame
stream end of the recirculation bubble. How- blow-out occurs when the recirculation zone
ever, in contrast to the formation of an unstable flame itself is extinguished. It can be seen from
split flame during flame lift-off in Fig. 7, the Fig. 3 that the lean flammability limit between
partially quenched flame is analogous to a Regimes II and III can be extended to the upper
(metastable) split flame, in that the downstream blow-out limit of the partially quenched flames
lifted flame and the upstream rim flame are at the same value of g.
connected by the burning recirculation bubble.
It is thus clear that the hot recirculation bubble Hysteresis of Lifted Flame and Triple Flame
provides a continual ignition source to delay the Structure
occurrence of flame local extinction at a higher
fuel velocity. This limiting fuel velocity increases The variation of H lift with U f at different air
with air velocity at first, remains almost constant velocities is shown in Fig. 11 for lifted flames
within a certain range, and finally increases stabilized on a bluff body 45 mm in diameter. In
again at high air velocities. Similar behavior also general, the lift-off behavior is qualitatively
has been reported for a burner of very small similar to that observed in earlier measure-
D b /D a ratio of 0.2 [2]. A combusting recircula- ments of pure jet flames [19, 25, 36] and a
tion bubble is better achieved with a larger value bluff-body burner [8]. When the air velocity
of D b based on the tendency shown in Fig. 6. remains fixed between approximately 1 and 3.4
62
m/s, a minimum value of H lift occurs at a ratio of
U f /U a between 10 and 14. At higher values of
U f /U a , the plots of H lift against U f gradually
converge to that obtaining for the pure jet flame
(indicated by a solid line on Fig. 11). At lower
values of U f /U a , the lift-off height increases with
decrease in U f until a maximum value of H lift is
reached in the hysteresis region, before either
reattachment or blow-out occurs. For values of
U a larger than about 1 m/s, the same value of
H lift is found downstream of the recirculation
bubble at two different values of U f . However,
the large difference between these two values of
U f implies that the stabilization mechanism for
the lifted flames downstream of a bluff body
might be different between the two extremes,
one approaching a pure jet flame, the other in
the hysteresis region. For the latter, the varia-
tion of the lift-off heights with different air
velocities in Fig. 11 indicates a flame stabiliza-
tion mechanism more subject to U a , while for
the former, H lift scales mainly with U f , rather
than U a .
Different flame stabilization mechanisms
might explain the variation in H lift . At high
values of U f , the lifted flames can be stabilized
at downstream positions where fuel/air premix-
ing down to the molecular level has been at-
tained at the flame base, similar to a pure jet
flame [21]. For flame stabilization, the mean
flow velocity at the flame base U # * should be
equal to the turbulent burning velocity S T . As
suggested by Fig. 11, various annular air veloc-
ities have little effect on the lift-off height if they
are much smaller than the fuel jet exit velocity,
which should decay linearly along the axial
distance for a jet flow. Thus, H lift scales linearly
with U f so as to keep U # * 5 S T . However, the
premixed flame propagation mechanism would
break down if the fuel/air premixing were no
longer homogeneous at the flame stabilization
position, but dominated by large-scale vortical
movement. In such cases, the propagating front
may not be continuous due to either too rich or
lean mixtures at the leading edge of the lifted
flame base, precluding the usual definition of a
turbulent burning velocity. This can happen
either when the lifted flame base in a simple jet
flow approaches the downstream position with
dominating azimuthal instability [25] or when
the shed vortices from the recirculation bubble
Y.-C. CHEN ET AL.
behind a bluff-body burner interact with the
flame base.
Vortex shedding from the recirculation bub-
ble behind the bluff body has been found to be
the dominating mechanism for downstream fu-
el/air mixing in the cold flow field [3, 33]. To
investigate the lifted flames in the hysteresis
region, consecutive shadowgraph images of a
lifted flame at U a 5 1.37 m/s were taken as U f
is continuously decreased. Figure 12 shows se-
quentially the evolution from a lifted flame in
Regime V to flame reattachment at U f 5 2.5
m/s. A minimum value of H lift occurs at U f 5 16
m/s, Fig. 12(3). Large-scale structures shed from
the recirculation zone can be seen beneath the
flame base in the hysteresis region. These be-
come clearer as the flame base approaches the
maximum lift-off height, Fig. 12(4) to (7).
Thereafter, the lifted flame starts to reattach to
the burner. The reattachment occurs, not along
the central fuel jet axis, but sideways along the
bluff-body surface. The interactions between
large-scale structures and the leading edge of
the flame base imply that in addition to molec-
ular mixing, large-scale partial premixing [17
19] and local flamelet quenching [15] may also
be important for flame stabilization in the hys-
teresis region. The increasing value of H lift with
decreasing U f in Fig. 11 also suggests that the
flame base propagation velocity may be reduced
to the order of the annular air velocity U a due to
a change in the flame stabilization mechanism,
from premixed flame propagation to large-scale
fuel/air premixing.
Although no quantitative evidence can be
provided, video images (exposure time 1/125 s)
show that the instantaneous structure in the
flame base is changed from a continuous ring-
shaped pattern to broken combusting fronts, or
even a cluster of fragmented flamelets with
decreasing U f . The continuous ring-shaped
flame front is typical for high values of U f , and
is consistent with the stabilization mechanism of
premixed flame propagation. By reducing U f of
a lifted flame into the hysteresis region, frag-
mentation of the circular ring-shaped flame
base occurs, as shown in Fig. 13 (page 63) for U f
5 10 m/s. The fragmented flamelet structure
becomes clearer when the flame base ap-
proaches the maximum H lift position. Figure 14
(page 63) shows some instantaneous images of
FLAME LIFT-OFF IN BLUFF-BODY STABILIZED FLAMES
the lifted flame base for U f 5 4 m/s. These
images cover only the lifted flame base, so that
the downstream strong soots luminosity is ex-
cluded and the fine structure of premixed
flames in the leading edge (in blue color, mainly
from OH and CH emission) can be revealed.
For these examples, some isolated flamelet
structures indicated with white arrows show an
arrow shape which is suggestive of a triple
flame structure. However, more definite evi-
dence is needed in this point.
A necessary condition for the formation of
triple flames is a mixture fraction gradient in the
approaching flow field. As observed in Fig. 12,
large-scale vortices can be shed from the recir-
culation bubble, which may quench locally the
ring-shaped flame fronts of lifted flames into
several independent sections either by high
strain rates [40], or fuel-rich or fuel-lean parcels
[35]. This argument is consistent with the
change of flame base appearance of a lifted
flame (U a 5 1.37 m/s) in Figs. 13 and 14, when
U f is reduced from 10 to 4 m/s in the hysteresis
region. Thus, the inhomogeneous fuel/air mix-
ture near each fragmented flamelet for the
63
Fig. 12. Consecutive shadow-
graph images of lifted flame with
continuously decreasing values of
U f . Top left image is lifted flame
in Regime V, bottom right shows
flame reattachment. U a is 1.37
m/s. Bluff-body diameter is 45
mm.
lifted flame at the maximum H lift position pro-
vides a favorable condition for triple flames.
The existence of triple flames in an unsteady
flow field has been shown in a numerical simu-
lation [41] and can be considered as the flame
nature when large-scale vortical movement
dominates fuel/air premixing. The high triple
flame propagation velocity may provide a pos-
sible explanation for reattachment of lifted
flames at the maximum H lift position in the
hysteresis region. The propagation velocity of
triple flames was found to be proportional to
the square root of the density ratio [31]. Assum-
ing a density ratio of burnt to unburnt gases of
7 and a laminar burning velocity of 40 cm/s, the
propagation velocity of a triple flame can be as
high as 1 m/s, which is on the same order of the
air velocity ;1.7 m/s, below which flame reat-
tachment occurs.
CONCLUSIONS
Basic combustion mechanisms for nonpremixed
turbulent flames stabilized on a bluff-body
64
burner have been identified on a regime dia-
gram. When flame stability is not critical at low
fuel jet velocities, the ratio of the air velocity to
the fuel velocity, g, is the controlling parameter.
Two limiting values, g l and g u , can be defined
between different flame modes. For g , g l , a
jet-like flame is formed that is lifted when the
fuel lift-off velocity is exceeded. For g . g u , no
fuel jet penetration occurs and only a recircula-
tion zone flame exists behind the bluff body. For
g l , g , g u , a central jet-dominated flame
occurs, which becomes partially quenched at
high fuel jet velocities in the blue neck flame
region, downstream of the recirculation bubble.
Stability of jet-like flames is governed by local
flame extinction at the position where the outer
mixing layer of the air vortex meets the central
jet flame fronts. Hence, an optimal operating
point, where the jet flame is least likely to lift
off, occurs at the condition of maximum recir-
culation zone length. The corresponding annu-
lus air Reynolds number is around 800 to 900, in
agreement with previous measurements. For
jet-dominated flames for larger values of g,
local quenching of the blue neck flame can be
retarded by the presence of a recirculation zone
flame, which serves as a fixed ignition source.
Thus, a burning recirculation bubble improves
the stability of bluff-body flames. This can be
achieved by increasing the annulus blockage
ratio.
The flame base position of a lifted flame at
flame lift-off correlates with the co-flow rather
than the jet velocity. This suggests that the
initial stabilization of a lifted flame is domi-
nated by diffusion flamelet quenching from air
co-flows. With increasing fuel velocities, the
lift-off heights coincide with those of a pure jet
flame, regardless of the annular air velocity.
Flame stabilization is then dominated by pre-
mixed flame propagation which depends mainly
on the fuel exit velocity. By further decreasing
the fuel exit velocity, a local H lift minimum is
reached where large-scale vortical structure
shed from the recirculation bubble can interact
with the lifted flame base. Partial fuel/air pre-
mixing and flamelet quenching become impor-
tant for flame stabilization. However, more
investigations are needed to clarify the reason
why a decreasing flame propagation velocity
Y.-C. CHEN ET AL.
with the increasing of lift-off height is caused by
decreasing fuel exit velocities.
The circular ring-shaped flame front of a
lifted flame fragments into flamelets with de-
creasing fuel velocities. Isolated flamelet struc-
tures are found, typically at the base of lifted
flames in the hysteresis region. At the maximum
H lift position, some instantaneous images of the
lifted flame base suggest the existence of triple
flame structures. Further confirmation is neces-
sary. However, this provides a possible explana-
tion for flame reattachment in the hysteresis
region for lifted flames with U a , 1.7 m/s.
The first author thanks Prof. Nobert Peters for
the introduction of the concept of triple flames
and his continuous encouragement. Financial
support from the National Science Council of the
Republic of China under Contract NSC85-2212-
E-007-021 is gratefully acknowledged. This work
was also partially supported by a Tsing-Hua Fel-
lowship (J.-T.Y.) and a Tsing-Hua Postdoctoral
Fellowship (Y.-C.C.).
REFERENCES
1. Beer, J. M., and Chigier, N. A., Combustion Aerodynam-
ics. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, FL, 1983, p.
68.
2. Masri, A. R., and Bilger, R. W., Twentieth Symposium
(International) on Combustion, The Combustion Insti-
tute, Pittsburgh, 1984, pp. 319 326.
3. Roquemore, W. M., Tankin, R. S., Chiu, H. H., and
Lottes, S. A., Exp. Fluids 4:205213 (1986).
4. Li, X., and Tankin, R. S., Combust. Sci. Technol. 52:173
206 (1987).
5. Schefer, R. W., Namazian, M., and Kelly, J., Combust.
Sci. Technol. 56:101138 (1987).
6. Takahashi, F., and Schmoll, W. J., Twenty-Third Sympo-
sium (International) on Combustion, The Combustion
Institute, Pittsburgh, 1990, pp. 677 683.
7. Prade, B., and Lenze, B., Twenty-Fourth Symposium
(International) on Combustion, The Combustion Insti-
tute, Pittsburgh, 1992, pp. 369 375.
8. Huang, R. F., and Lin, C. T., Combust. Sci. Technol.
100:123139 (1994).
9. Yang, J.-T., Chang, C.-C., and Lin, M.-T. (1995). Ninth
Congress on Cogeneration and Utility, Industrial and
Independent Power Generation, Vienna, Austria,
ASME paper 95-CTP-44.
10. Schefer, R. W., Namazian, M., and Kelly, J., J. AIAA
32:1844 1851 (1994).
11. Chin, L. P., and Tankin, R. S., Combust. Sci. Technol.
80:207229 (1991).
12. Pitts, W. M., Twenty-Second Symposium (International)
FLAME LIFT-OFF IN BLUFF-BODY STABILIZED FLAMES
on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh,
1988, pp. 809 816.
13. Vanquickenborne, L., and van Tiggelen, A., Combust.
Flame 10:59 69 (1966).
14. Kalghatgi, G. T., Combust. Sci. Technol. 41:1729
(1984).
15. Peters, N., and Williams, F. A., AIAA J. 21:423 429
(1983).
16. Byggstyl, S., and Magnussen, B. F., in Turbulent Shear
Flows 4 (L. J. S. Bradbury et al., Eds.), Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1985, p. 381.
17. Broadwell, J. E., Dahm, W. J. A., and Mungal, M. G.,
Twentieth Symposium (International) on Combustion,
The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1984, pp. 303
310.
18. Miake-Lye, R. C., and Hammer, J. A., Twenty-Second
Symposium (International) on Combustion, The Com-
bustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1988, pp. 817 824.
19. Lin, C.-K., Jeng, M.-S., and Chao, Y.-C., Exp. Fluids
14:353365 (1993).
20. Schefer, R. W., Namazian, M., Filtopoulos, E. E. J., and
Kelly, J., Twenty-Fifth Symposium (International) on
Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh,
1994, pp. 12231231.
21. Schefer, R. W., Namazian, M., and Kelly, J., Combust.
Flame 99:75 86 (1994).
22. Kaplan, C. R., Oran, E. S., and Baek, S. W., Twenty-
Fifth Symposium (International) on Combustion, The
Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1994, pp. 11831189.
23. Eickhoff, H., Lenze, B., and Leuckel, W., Twentieth
Symposium (International) on Combustion, The Com-
bustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1984, pp. 311318.
24. Gollahalli, S. R., Savas, O., Huang, R. F., and Ro-
driquez Azara, J. L., Twenty-First Symposium (Interna-
tional) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pitts-
burgh, 1986, pp. 14631471.
25. Shekarchi, S., Savas, O., and Gollahalli, S. R., Combust.
Flame 73:221232 (1988).
26. Ishikawa, N., Combust. Sci. Technol. 30:185203; 30:
311325; 31:109 117; 35:207213 (1983).
27. Kioni, P. N., Rogg, B., Bray, K. N. C., and Linan, A.,
Combust. Flame 95:276 290 (1993).
65
28. Chen, Y.-C., and Chung, S.-H., Proceedings of the
Sixteenth International Colloquium on the Dynamics of
Explosions and Reactive Systems, pp. 28 31, (1997).
29. Buckmaster, J., and Matalon, M., Twenty-Second Sym-
posium (International) on Combustion, The Combustion
Institute, Pittsburgh, 1988, pp. 15271535.
30. Dold, J. W., Hartley, L. J., and Green, D., in Dynamical
Issues in Combustion Theory (P. C. Fife, A. Linan, and
F. A. Williams, Eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991,
pp. 83105.
31. Ruetsch, G. R., Vervisch, L., and Linan, A., Phys. Fluids
7:14471454 (1995).
32. Chang, C.-C. (1996). Ph.D. thesis, National Tsing Hua
University, Taiwan.
33. Huang, R. F., and Lin, C. L., AIAA J. 32:1868 1874
(1994).
34. Huang, R. F., and Lin, C. L., AIAA J. 35:887 892
(1997).
35. Takahashi, F., and Goss, L. P., Twenty-Fourth Sympo-
sium (International) on Combustion, The Combustion
Institute, Pittsburgh, 1992, pp. 677 683.
36. Coats, C. M., and Zhao, H., Twenty-Second Symposium
(International) on Combustion, The Combustion Insti-
tute, Pittsburgh, 1988, pp. 685 692.
37. Huang, R. F., Chen, C. F., Lin, C. L., and Bear, G. M.,
Exp. Fluids 17:259 266 (1994).
38. Durao, D. F. G., and Whitelaw, J. H., J. Fluid Mech.
85:369 385 (1978).
39. Muller, C. M., Breitbach, H., and Peters, N., Twenty-
Fifth Symposium (International) on Combustion, The
Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1994, pp. 1099 1106.
40. Everest, D. A., Feikema, D. A., and Driscoll, J. F.,
Twenty-Sixth Symposium (International) on Combustion,
1996, pp. 129 136.
41. Veynante, D., Vervisch, L., Poinsot, T., Linan, A., and
Ruetsch, G., Proceedings of the Summer School Program
1994, CTR, NASA Ames/Stanford, 1994, pp. 5573.
Received 7 June 1996; accepted 26 October 1997