NO formation in flameless combustion: comparison of different modeling

approaches

A. Parente∗,a , A. Cuocib , C. Gallettia , A. Frassoldatib , T. Faravellib , L. Tognottia

a Dipartimentodi Ingegneria Chimica, Chimica Industriale e Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Pisa, Via Diotisalvi 2,
56123 Pisa, Italy
b CMIC Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32,

20133 Milano, Italy

Abstract
The prediction of NO emissions from industrial burners represents a key goal of Computational Fluid Dy-
namics (CFD) aided design. Simplified NO formation mechanisms are usually desirable, to reduce the
computational effort related to the numerical simulations; however, they must be able to capture the NO
trends with acceptable accuracy. Simplified mechanisms for the thermal and prompt NO formation routes
are generally available within the existing commercial CFD packages and they provide acceptable NO predic-
tions at relatively high temperatures. However, when operating at lower temperatures and with hydrogen,
other mechanisms can be relevant, such as those involving N2 O and NNH intermediates. This can become
particularly relevant in non traditional combustion regimes, such as flameless combustion, characterized by
operating temperature far below the levels observed in traditional burners. The present work shows a nu-
merical and experimental investigation of a flameless combustion burner operating with methane-hydrogen
mixtures with a H2 content up to 50% by wt. The work is focused on the requirements of the CFD model for
the accurate prediction of the NO emissions from the burner. In particular, the influence of the combustion
model and kinetic mechanism on the temperature fields on which the NO prediction is based is thoroughly
discussed, together with the simplified NO formation paths to be included in the model. The approach
based on the direct coupling of simplified NO mechanisms to the CFD calculation is compared to a different
methodology, based on the post-processing of the CFD results with detailed kinetic mechanism for the gas-
phase combustion and pollutants formation. A validation methodology is also implemented to quantitatively
assess the degree of agreement between the numerical results and the experiments and to guide the selection
of the modeling parameters required for predicting NO emissions accurately.

1. Introduction process of determining whether or not the math-

Nowadays, numerical simulations represent a fun-
damental tool for the design and development of en-
gineering systems. The so called Computer Aided
Engineering (CAE) for “virtual prototyping” and
“virtual testing” is continuously growing, due to the
improved reliability of computational tools and the
high cost and time associated with laboratory test-
ing of components and complete systems. However,
users and developers of computational tools face to-
day the critical issue of determining how the confi-
dence in modeling and simulations should be crit-
ically assessed, to effectively help decision making
in new design and regulation (i.e. safety and envi-
ronmental). Verification and Validation [1] (V&V)
of computational simulations provides a primary
method for building and identifying this confidence.
The methodology is cyclical and involves the activi-
ties of model developments, model verification (the
∗ E-mail address: alessandro.parente@ing.unipi.it
Preprint submitted to Proceedings of the European Combustion Meeting 2009
ematical models are implemented into computer
code as the programmer intended) and model val-
idation (the process of determining how well the
computer model matches the physical world). In
other words, verification is mainly a mathematical
issue, while validation is a physical issue.
The present study shows a validation activity car-
ried out on a semi-industrial burner designed for
heating applications in the steel industry [2]. The
peculiarity of the system is that to operate in the
so-called flameless combustion regime, which allows
to control NOx emissions, even at the highest air-
preheating [3, 4, 5]. In particular, the objective of
the study is to compare different modeling strate-
gies for the prediction of NO formation . The burner
under consideration has been extensively studied
in [2] and [6], to investigate the impact of tur-
bulence/chemistry interactions models and kinetic
mechanisms on the NO predictions. Results from
these studies showed that it is possible to capture
NO trends from the burner with simple NO forma-
February 9, 2009
tion models (e.g. thermal and prompt simplified
mechanisms), given an adequate description of the
temperature field in the burner. However, the valid-
ity of such result largely depends on the relatively
high temperature of the combustion process at the
investigated operating conditions.
The present numerical investigation refer to ex-
perimental conditions significantly different from
those characterizing the previous campaigns. In
particular, the flameless combustion of methane-
hydrogen mixtures has been investigated in ultra-
lean conditions. The addition of hydrogen to lean
hydrocarbon flames is of great interest for combus-
tion scientists and engineers, as this could improve
the burning stability [7, 8]; however, adverse effects
on NOx formation could be observed. Thus, oper-
ating in flameless regime could represent a valid so-
lution for H2 -enriched ultra-lean mixtures [9]. From
the modeling perspective, the description of NO for-
mation at low-temperatures requires the incorpora-
tion of additional mechanisms, beside the ones typ-
ically adopted, i.e. thermal and prompt. In par-
ticular, the N2 O intermediate NO mechanism [10]
and the NNH route have been taken into account.
NNH formation was first proposed by Bozzelli and
Dean [11], who deduced a large kinetic constant for
the reaction employing the direct oxidation of NNH
to NO. Such result was confirmed by Hayhurst and
Hutchinson [12], who performed measurements of
NOx in a laminar, premixed, flat CH4 /H2 flame.
Such formation route must be included in the over-
all NO formation scheme when operating at low-
temperatures and with significant amounts of hy-
drogen in the fuel, to explain NOx concentration
too high to be entirely determined by the Zeldovich
mechanism.
This paper presents a comparison of different
modeling strategies for the prediction of NO in
ultra-lean conditions and at low temperature. In
particular, the approach based on the direct cou-
pling of simplified NO mechanisms to the CFD cal-
culation is compared to a different methodology,
based on the post-processing of the CFD results
with detailed kinetic mechanisms for the gas-phase
combustion and pollutants formation. The latter
approach is justified by the fact that NOx chem-
istry barely influences the overall temperature and
flow field. Therefore, the flow field is taken from
the CFD simulation and a detailed kinetic calcula-
tion is carried out on a reactor network built from
the CFD grid, using criteria based on the similari-
ties of local temperature and species concentration
[13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. Computational results are com-
pared to experimental data collected on the recu-
perative burner operating in flameless combustion
regime, with hydrogen contents up to 50% (by wt.).
Data regarding the composition of the flue gases
and the temperature on the outer wall of the com-
2
bustion chamber are available.
In the next Section, a brief description of the
methodology used to assess the level of agreement
between experimental data and the computational
results within the V&V framework is provided, fol-
lowed by the description of the modeling approaches
and the discussion of the results.
2. Validation metrics
The level of agreement between experimental
data and numerical results is assessed by means
of validation metrics [18], based on the definition
of confidence intervals for the experimental data,
which contains the observed mean value of the mea-
sured population within a defined confidence. For
an arbitrary number of random experiments, it is
possible to define a standardized random variable,
−µ
ye √
T , as T = s/ n
, where y e is the estimated sample
Pn
mean based on n experiments yei , y e = n1 i=1 yei ,
µ is the true mean, s is the sample standard de-
h
1
Pn i

2 i 12
viation, s = n−1 i=1 y e − y e , and n is the
number of experiments. Following [18], it is possible
to define a confidence interval for µ as:

s s

µ ∼ x − t α2 ,υ √ , x + t α2 ,υ √ (1)
n n
where ν = n − 1 represents the degrees of free-
dom of the population and t α2 ,υ is the 1− α2 quantile
of t-distribution with υ degrees of freedom. There-
fore, it is possible to state that the true mean is
contained in the interval given by Eq. (1) with a
confidence, C, equal to 100 · (1 − α) %. Common
values for C are 0.9, 0.95, 0.98 and 0.99 which cor-
respond to values of α equal to 0.1, 0.05, 0.02 and
0.01, respectively.
The construction of an error validation metric
requires the evaluation of two quantities: the es-
timated error and the interval containing the true
error:
e = ym − y e
E E = ym − µ (2)
Following Eqs. (1) and (2), the following expres-
sion for the confidence interval of the true error is
obtained:
 
s e s
E ∼ E − t 2 ,υ √ , E + t 2 ,υ √
e α α (3)
n n
With respect to the metric defined in Eq. (3), it is
important to mention that the confidence intervals
are defined solely on the basis of the experimental
data, since the true mean is the real unknown of the
problem.
Equations (2)-(3) can be easily extended to the
case of a system quantity response monitored over a
range of the input variable. Moreover, in some ap-
plications, it is desirable to provide global metrics,
able to summarize the level of agreement for a large
number of computational models and experimental
data. In particular, an average error metric can be
defined as:
burner under investigation is designed for heating-
up applications, in environment where the oxidizing
atmosphere must be kept separated from the pro-
cess atmosphere (e.g. reducing), as it happens in
the steel industry for annealing processes. There-
  Pp   Pp   fore, the code was coupled with a subroutine for
 Ee  1  ym (xi )−ȳe (xi )  1  E(x
e i) 
 ȳe  = p i=1  ȳe (xi ) = p i=1  ȳe (xi )  the evaluation of the radiative heat transfer from
avg
(4) the radiant tube. Details of the subroutine can be
found elsewhere [2].
The confidence interval to be associated with the
average error metric is the normalized average con- The direct coupling of detailed kinetics and fluid
fidence interval: dynamics was compared to a different approach, the
kinetic post-processing (KinPP), based on the gen-
 
 CI  t α ,υ Pp

 s(xi ) 
 eral concept of “reactor network analysis” [13, 14]
 ȳe  = p1 √2 n i=1  ȳe (xi )  (5)
avg
3. Modeling approaches
Numerical simulations were performed with the
commercial code FLUENT 6.3 by Ansys Inc. Favre-
averaged Navier-Stokes equations were solved using
the standard k-ε turbulence model. The Eddy Dis-
sipation Concept (EDC) by Magnussen [19, 20] was
taken into account to model turbulence/chemistry
interactions and to include detailed chemistry in
the numerical simulation. Two different kinetic
mechanisms were used to describe the oxidation of
methane/hydrogen mixtures, the KEE58 [21] and
the DRM-19 [22]. Thermal NO formation was mod-
eled using a Finite Rate (FR) approach and a sim-
plified one-step kinetic mechanism, available in the
code [23] and obtained from the Zeldovich scheme
by assuming a steady state for the N radicals and re-
lating the O radical concentration to that of oxygen
by means of the dissociation reaction [24]. Similarly,
prompt NO formation from methane was modeled
following De Soete [25]. The N2 O intermediate [10]
and NNH [11] routes were also included in the mod-
eling approach, to account for low-temperature for-
mation mechanisms and for the presence of H2 frac-
tions in the fuel. The NNH route is not directly
available in the code; therefore, it was implemented
by means of a user defined subroutine (UDF) follow-
ing Konnov et al. [26]. The kinetic rates were inte-
grated over a probability density function (PDF) for
temperature in order to take into account the effect
of turbulent fluctuations on the mean reaction rates
[23]. Additional detailes regarding the modelin ap-
proach (i.e. radiative model, spectral properties, ...)
can be found in [6].
As far as the boundary conditions are concerned,
two user defined functions were coupled with the
code in order to make the burner model self-
sufficient. The air inlet temperature was evaluated
as a function of the exhaust gases temperature,
using an empirical correlation available from the
burner supplier. Moreover, particular attention was
paid to the boundary condition at the wall delim-
iting the combustion chamber (radiant tube). The
3
and already applied to industrial burners [27, 28]
for the prediction of different pollutants (NOx , CO
and unburned hydrocarbons). The first step for the
KinPP application is the CFD calculation of the
flame structure using a simplified kinetic scheme,
based on a small number of species and global re-
actions. The knowledge of the thermo-fluid dy-
namic field allows to identify critical and non criti-
cal zones in the overall reacting system and to lump
(or group) several cells, similar from a kinetic point
of view, into a single lumped reactor, thus reducing
the dimensions of the overall system. A fixed av-
erage temperature is assumed in each reactor and
the rates of all the reactions involved in the ki-
netic scheme are evaluated accordingly. However,
in turbulent combustion conditions, a proper cor-
rection must be applied to the reaction rates, to
take into account the effects of temperature fluctu-
ations [27]. These corrections are very relevant for
thermal NOx formation reactions, characterized by
high activation energies. Additional details on the
Kinetic Post-Processor and its numerical method
are reported in [13, 14].
The numerical simulations to be post-processed
with the kinetic post-processor were carried out us-
ing a simplified kinetic scheme for the CFD sim-
ulations. In particular, a 4-steps mechanism for
methane-hydrogen mixtures was adopted [29]. The
detailed kinetic scheme, used in the post-processing
step, is able to describe the oxidation of heavy hy-
drocarbon fuels, up to diesel and jet fuels, and its
main features were already discussed in the litera-
ture [30]. The chemistry of nitrogen compounds is
also discussed elsewhere [31, 32]. The thermody-
namic properties are taken from CHEMKIN Ther-
modynamic Database [33]. The overall mechanism
is freely available at the following web address:
www.chem.polimi.it/CRECKModeling.
A scheme of the conceptual path followed in the
present study in shown in Figure.
4. Results
The present Section first describes the results of
the direct coupling of detailed kinetics and fluid

Figure 1: Conceptual scheme of the numerical simula-
tions.
dynamics within the CFD simulations. Then, the
comparison with the kinetic post-processing is pro-
posed. The contour plots of temperature in the
burner fed with increasing fractions of H2 (from 10
to 70 % of the total thermal input) are shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2: Temperature field in the burner fed with
increasing H2 in the fuel. H2 content corresponding to
(a) 10%, (b) 20%, (c) 30%, (d) 50%, (e) 60% and (f)
70% of the total burner thermal input, 10 kW. Kinetic
mechanism: KEE58 [21].
It can be observed how the addition of hydro-
gen results in a combustion region which is progres-
sively shifted toward the burner exit. The maxi-
mum temperature is not observed for the case cor-
responding to the highest hydrogen content in the
fuel; however, this is due to the fact that the air-
excess was found to increase almost linearly (from
120 to 170 %) when increasing the hydrogen ther-
mal input (from 10 to 70%). This is due to the
setting of the burner, designed to control the air
4
mass flow rate for the combustion of methane fuels.
Figure 3 shows the 98% confidence intervals for
the average temperature at the radiant tube, to-
gether with the comparison between experiments
and model predictions, when increasing the hydro-
gen thermal content from 10% to 70%. The results
provided by the KEE58 and DRM19 models are
very similar, as expected, and in very good agree-
ment with the experimental mean for the 10% and
20% cases, while both the models under predict the
average radiant tube temperature for all the other
cases. The maximum departure is observed for the
70% H2 thermal input and is around 25 K. This
slight under prediction is actually expected, due to
the geometric simplification and the choice of a 2D
model for the burner, instead of a 3D grid, which
determines an over prediction of the recirculation
degree, thus leading to a reduction of the temper-
ature levels. Such result can be considered accept-
able, given all the experimental and numerical un-
certainties of the problem.
(a)
(b)
Figure 3: Experimental and computed average temper-
atures at the radiant tube (a) and NO emissions in the
flue gases (b), for different values of hydrogen thermal
input. Experimental data are presented with associated
98% confidence intervals.
Figure 3 shows the 98% confidence intervals for
the average NO emissions from the burner, to- Table 1: Average and maximum global validation met-
gether with the comparison between experiments rics for the average NO emissions from the burner. In
and model predictions. Different variants of the the Table, K and D denote the KEE58 and DRM19
model, including NNH, have been tested, due to an mechanisms.
uncertainty in the activation energy for the NO for-    
 Ee   CI 
mation reaction via NNH [12]. It can be observed Model  ȳe   ȳe 
avg avg
that NO formation is very sensible to such parame-
K - Th+Pr 0.992 ±0.013
ter, especially at high H2 concentrations. It is also
K - Th+Pr+N2 O 0.649 ±0.013
noteworthy to mention that the confidence inter-
vals for NO are very narrow, limited to fractions of K - Th+Pr+N2 O+NNH 0.184 ±0.013
ppmv . From Figure 3, it is clear how the role of K - Th+Pr+N2 O+NNH
0.081 ±0.013
the NNH route is critical to explain the NO emis- (Ea +2.5kJ/mol )
sions. Without considering such route the resulting D - Th+Pr 0.991 ±0.013
error would be huge. A considerable improvement D - Th+Pr+N2 O 0.644 ±0.013
in the prediction is also obtained by varying the D - Th+Pr+N2 O+NNH 0.237 ±0.013
activation energy for the NNH route within the un- D - Th+Pr+N2 O+NNH
0.155 ±0.013
certainty range (±5 kJ/mol) indicated by Hayhurst (Ea +2.5kJ/mol )
and Hutchinson [12]. The value of 2.5 kJ/kmol kinPP - No T fluctuations 0.207 ±0.013
seems the one providing, in all cases. better agree- kinPP - T fluctuations 0.077 ±0.013
ment with the experimental data. Moreover, the
KEE58 mechanism appears to provide always bet-
the more accurate is the prediction of the thermal
ter results than the DRM19 mechanism.
field by the CFD calculation, the more reliable the
Such analysis can be quantitatively supported by KinPP predictions are expected. The effects of tem-
the global validation metrics provided in Table 1. perature fluctuations on the formation of NO were
The values confirm that the KEE58 kinetic mech- also investigated. Even if in ultra-lean conditions
anisms is able to better capture the trend of NO the temperature fluctuations are relatively small,
emissions over the range of hydrogen thermal in- their effect on the NO emissions is not negligible.
puts, when NNH is coupled to the NO model. In Figure 3 shows a decrease of 25-30% of the NO
particular the combination of KEE58 and of a NO emissions, when temperature fluctuations are not
model with an activation energy for the NO forma- taken into account. This leads to an increase in the
tion mechanism via NNH increased by 2.5 kJ/mol, average validation metric, as pointed out in Table
results in an average error metric of 8.1%±1.3% 1.
(with 98% confidence). This is a very interest-
ing results, considering the extremely challenging
conditions for the prediction, i.e. ultra-lean Conclusions
 and
hydrogen-rich. All the other values for Ee/ȳe avg
are well above the values indicated for the selected
model, which will be referenced in the following sim-
ply as complete NO mechanism.
The results of the kinetic post-processing of the
CFD calculation, carried out with a simplified ki-
netic mechanism (Section 3), are summarized in
Figure 3 and Table 1. The comparison with the
experimental data can be considered satisfactory:
the effect of H2 addition is well represented by
the model and quantitative agreement is reasonably
good. In particular, the average validation metrics
in Table 1 show a reduction of the average error
with respect to the results obtained with the direct
coupling of detailed kinetic in the CFD simulation,
decreasing from the value of 15.5%, given by the
complete NO mechanism, to 7.7%.
Figure 3 also shows that the predicted NOx emis-
sions are always larger than the experimental values
and this seems to indicate that the CFD simulation
tends to over-predict the temperature. This result is
somehow expected, being the numerical simulation
carried out with a global kinetic scheme. Of course,
5
A comparison between different modeling ap-
proaches and validation strategies for the prediction
of NO emissions from a semi-industrial flameless
burner has been presented. The direct computation
of NO in the CFD calculation, by means of detailed
mechanisms for gas-phase oxidation and simplified
approaches for NO formation, has been compared to
the kinetic post-processing of CFD simulations, us-
ing very detailed schemes for pollutant formation.
Results have been compared to the experimental
data using validation metrics for the quantitative
assessment of the level of agreement. With respect
to the CFD simulations, the analysis showed that
it is possible to achieve a reasonable agreement be-
tween simulations and experiments only by taking
into account detailed kinetic schemes for gas-phase
combustion and including, with simplified one-step
mechanisms, all the relevant sources of NO at the
investigated operating conditions. On the other
hand, the kinetic post-processing allows to adopt
simpler kinetic mechanisms in the CFD simulations,
as the pollutant formation is computed using very
detailed schemes.
References
[1] W. L. Oberkampf, T. G. Trucano, Verification and Val-
idation in computational fluid dynamics, Progress in
Aerospace Sciences 38 (3) (2002) 209–272.
[2] C. Galletti, A. Parente, L. Tognotti, Numerical and ex-
perimental investigation of a mild combustion burner,
Combustion and Flame 151 (2007) 649–664.
[3] J. A. Wünning, J. G. Wünning, Flameless oxidation to
reduce thermal NO-formation, Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 23 (1997) 81–94.
[4] A. Cavaliere, M. de Joannon, Mild Combustion,
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30 (2004)
329–366.
[5] A. K. Gupta, Thermal characteristics of gaseous fuel
flames using high temperature air, Journal of Engineer-
ing for Gas Turbines and Power 126 (2004) 9–19.
[6] A. Parente, C. Galletti, L. Tognotti, Effect of the com-
bustion model and kinetic mechanism on the MILD
combustion in an industrial burner fed with hydrogen
enriched fuels, International Journal of Hydrogen En-
ergy 33 (2008) 7553–7564.
[7] H. Guo, G. J. Smallwood, F. Liu, Y. Ju, . L. Gülder, The
effect of hydrogen addition on flammability limit and
NOx emission in ultra-lean counterflow CH4/air pre-
mixed flames, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute
30 (2005) 303–311.
[8] G. J. Rørtveit, J. E. Hustad, S. C. Li, F. A. Williams,
Effects of diluents on NOx formation in hydrogen coun-
terflow flames, Combustion and Flame 130 (2002) 48–
61.
[9] M. Derudi, A. Villani, R. Rota, Mild combustion of in-
dustrial hydrogen-containing byproducts, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 46 (2007) 6806–6811.
[10] P. Malte, D. Pratt, Measurement of atomic oxygen and
nitrogen oxides in jet-stirred combustion, Proceedings
of the Combustion Institute 15 (1975) 1061–1070.
[11] J. W. Bozzelli, A. M. Dean, O + NNH — A Possible
New Route for NOx Formation in Flames, International
Journal of Chemical Kinetics 27 (1995) 1097–1109.
[12] A. N. Hayhurst, E. M. Hutchinson, Evidence for a New
Way of Producing NO via NNH in Fuel-Rich Flames
at Atmospheric Pressure, Combustion and Flame 114
(1998) 274–279.
[13] M. Falcitelli, S. Pasini, L. Tognotti, Modelling practi-
cal combustion systems and predicting NOx emissions
with an integrated CFD based approach, Computers
and Chemical Engineering 26 (2002) 1171–1183.
[14] M. Falcitelli, S. Pasini, N. Rossi, L. Tognotti,
CFD+reactor network analysis: an integrated method-
ology for the modelling and optimisation of industrial
systems for energy saving and pollution reduction, Ap-
plied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 971–981.
[15] T. Faravelli, L. Bua, A. Fassoldati, A. Antifora, L. Tog-
notti, E. Ranzi, A new procedure for predicting NOx
emissions from furnaces, Computers and Chemical En-
gineering 25 (2001) 613–618.
[16] A. Frassoldati, S. Frigerio, E. Colombo, F. Inzoli,
T. Faravelli, Determination of NOx emissions from
strong swirling confined flames with an integrated
CFD-based procedure, Chemical Engineering Science 60
(2005) 2851–2869.
[17] M. S. Skjøth-Rasmussen, O. Holm-Christensen, M. Øst-
berg, T. S. Christensen, T. Johannessen, A. D. Jensen,
P. Glarborg, H. Livbjerg, Post-processing of detailed
chemical kinetic mechanisms onto CFD simulations,
Computers and Chemical Engineering 28 (2004) 2351–
2361.
[18] W. L. Oberkampf, M. F. Barone, Measures of agree-
ment between computation and experiment: validation
metrics, Journal of Computational Physics 217 (2006)
5–38.
[19] B. F. Magnussen, On the Structure of Turbulence and
a Generalized Eddy Dissipation Concept for Chemical
6
Reaction in Turbulent Flow, in: 19th AIAA Aerospace
Science Meeting, 1981.
[20] I. R. Gran, B. F. Magnussen, A Numerical Study of
a Bluff-Body Stabilized Diffusion Flame. Part 2. Influ-
ence of Combustion Modeling and Finite-Rate Chem-
istry, Combustion Science and Technology 119 (1996)
191–217.
[21] R. Bilger, S. Starner, R. Kee, On Reduced Mechanisms
for Methane-Air Combustion in Nonpremixed Flames,
Combustion and Flame 80 (1990) 135–149.
[22] A. Kazakov, M. Frenklach URL http://www.me.
berkeley.edu/drm/.
[23] A. Inc., Fluent 6.3 User Guide, 2006.
[24] A. A. Westenberg, Kinetics of NO and CO in lean, pre-
mixed hydrocarbon-air flames, Combustion Science and
Technology 4 (1971) 59–64.
[25] G. G. D. Soete, Overall Reaction Rates of NO and N2
Formation from Fuel Nitrogen, Proceedings of the Com-
bustion Institute 15 (1974) 1093–1102.
[26] A. A. Konnov, G. Colson, J. D. Ruyck, The New Route
Forming NO Via NNH, Combustion and Flame 121
(2000) 548–550, brief Communication.
[27] A. Cuoci, A. Frassoldati, G. Buzzi-Ferraris, T. Faravelli,
E. Ranzi, The ignition, combustion and flame structure
of carbon monoxide/hydrogen mixtures. Note 2: Fluid
dynamics and kinetic aspects of syngas combustion, In-
ternational Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 3486–
3500.
[28] A. Frassoldati, A. Cuoci, T. Faravelli, E. Ranzi,
S. Colantuoni, P. D. Martino, G. Cinque, Experimental
and modeling study of a low NOx combustor for aero-
engine turbofan, Combustion Science and Technology
181 (2009) in press.
[29] C. Westbrook, F. Dryer, Chemical Kinetic Modelling
of Hydrocarbon Combustion, Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 10 (1984) 1–57.
[30] E. Ranzi, M. Dente, A. Goldaniga, G. Bozzano, T. Far-
avelli, Lumping procedures in detailed kinetic modeling
of gasification, pyrolysis, partial oxidation and combus-
tion of hydrocarbon mixtures., Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 27 (2001) 99–139.
[31] T. Faravelli, A. Frassoldati, E. Ranzi, Kinetic Modeling
of Mutual Interactions in NO-Hydrocarbon Low Tem-
perature Oxidation, Combustion and Flame 133 (2003)
188–207.
[32] T. Faravelli, A. Frassoldati, E. Ranzi, Kinetic Modeling
of Mutual Interactions in NO-Hydrocarbon High Tem-
perature Oxidation, Combustion and Flame 135 (2003)
97–112.
[33] R. J. Kee, F. Rupley, J. A. Miller, The CHEMKIN Ther-
modynamic Data Base, Report SAND89-8008, Sandia
National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, 1989.