1

Appears in the Proceedings of the Sixth International

Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Poitiers France, July, 1999

NUMERICAL MODELING OF COUNTERFLOW DIFFUSION FLAMES

INHIBITED BY IRON PENTACARBONYL*

Marc D. Rumminger† and Gregory T. Linteris‡

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg MD 20899-8651, USA

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the first detailed numerical study of the extinction of methane-air

counterflow diffusion flames by the super-effective agent iron pentacarbonyl. Calculations

using a gas-phase chemical mechanism reproduce the magnitude of inhibition for small

amounts of inhibitor in the air, but overpredict the inhibition effect for larger amounts of

inhibitor. Reaction pathway and reaction flux analyses show that a catalytic cycle involving

FeO, Fe(OH)2, and FeOH is primarily responsible for catalytic recombination of H atoms

which produces the inhibition, and that a new cycle involving Fe(OH), FeOOH and Fe(OH)2

has a minor role. Reaction flux calculations demonstrate that the fractional flux of H and O

atoms through the iron reactions increases as inhibitor concentration increases, but eventually

the fractional fluxes level off. Saturation of the catalytic cycles can partially explain the

diminishing effect of the inhibitor at high inhibitor loading shown in both the calculated and

experimental results. Flame structure calculations are used to determine the reasons for

stronger inhibition for air-side addition of the inhibitor than for fuel-side. Simulations using a

idealized inhibitor confirm the important role of transport in inhibition of counterflow diffusion

flames.

KEYWORDS: halon alternatives, diffusion flames, flame inhibition, modeling,

iron pentacarbonyl

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Production of the effective and widely-used fire suppressant CF3Br (and similar compounds)

has been banned because of its role in the destruction of stratospheric ozone. Although

replacement agents (mostly hydrofluorocarbons) are being developed, an agent with all of the

desirable properties of CF3Br is proving difficult to find, and research has intensified. There

 

*

 Official contribution of NIST, not subject to copyright in the United States

†

 National Research Council/NIST postdoctoral fellow

‡

 Corresponding author
2

exist metallic compounds which are up to 100 times more effective than the brominated agents

[1-3]. In particular, iron pentacarbonyl (Fe(CO)5) has been found to be one of the strongest

inhibitors [4]. Although Fe(CO)5 is highly toxic and flammable, it is so effective that studying

its kinetic behavior in flames could provide insight into its mechanism and those of other

highly effective agents and allow development of efficient, non-toxic agents.

The strong inhibitory effect of iron pentacarbonyl was discovered in the 1960s by Wagner and

co-workers [1],[4] who performed burning velocity and spectroscopic measurements in

premixed hydrocarbon and hydrogen flames. Because of its strong inhibiting effect and the

limited understanding of its inhibition chemistry, iron pentacarbonyl is the subject of increasing

attention [5-8]. Recent experiments have examined the behavior of iron pentacarbonyl in

premixed methane-oxygen-nitrogen flames and in counterflow diffusion flames [5]. In

premixed flames, the experiments showed that while small amounts of Fe(CO)5 reduce the

flame speed proportionally to the amount of inhibitor, increasing the inhibitor concentration

above a certain amount had virtually no effect. The authors postulated that the lack of further

inhibition was due to condensation of active gas-phase species to relatively inactive particles.

Based on work of Jensen and Jones [9], a gas-phase kinetic description of flame inhibition has

been developed and used for understanding Fe(CO)5 inhibition of premixed methane flames

with varying oxygen mole fraction [8] and temperature [7], and for predicting the global

properties (extinction) of diffusion flames [8]. The calculations predicted many (but not all) of

the features, implied that inhibition occurs through gas-phase chemistry, and again indicated

that condensation of active species may be important. Flame simulations using the chemical

mechanism in Ref. [8] have primarily concerned premixed flames. Although study of

premixed flames can provide great insight into inhibition chemistry, the study of diffusion

flames—which are more representative of real fires—is required as well.

Most of the previous fundamental studies of flame inhibition have also been performed in

premixed flames (due to the simplicity of interpretation of the results), but a substantial

amount of work has also been done in diffusion flames. The counterflow configuration has

been frequently used because of its flexibility, unambiguous extinction condition, and

amenability to numerical modeling. Most of the early counterflow diffusion flame research

involved experiments on halogenated inhibitors with some analysis [10-12]. Recent work has

involved both experiments and numerical modeling [13-17]. Study of super-effective

inhibitors in diffusion flames has been limited to Fe(CO)5 [5, 6] and dimethyl

methylphosphonate [18, 19].

An important finding of previous inhibited diffusion flame research is the dependence of the

inhibitor's effectiveness on the location of agent addition (fuel or oxidizer stream) [5, 10, 12,

15-18]. Although all researchers find that much higher agent mole fractions are required in

the fuel stream than the oxidizer stream for extinction, some find that most of the discrepancy

is accounted for by the differing mass flux of agent to the reaction zone [12, 15], while others

find additional differences even after accounting for these effects [16, 18]. As described by

Fallon et al. [17], addition of reactive inhibitors can alter the flame location, changing the

effective flow-field residence time for a given value of the strain rate; consequently, they

stressed the use of scalar dissipation rate as the relevant extinction parameter rather than the

strain rate when these effects are important. In contrast to the above results, Ibiricu and
3

Gaydon [20] usually found the strongest effect on total OH emission when agents were added

to the fuel stream. Despite the large number of studies, none of them rigorously addressed

differences in the chemical interactions of the inhibitor with other species in the primary heat

release zone of the flame when the agent is introduced from different sides of the diffusion

flame, and none have numerically modeled inhibition by the most powerful agents.

This paper describes the first detailed numerical study of the extinction of counterflow

diffusion flames by a super-effective agent. A recently developed chemical kinetic mechanism

of iron species inhibition of hydrocarbon flames is used to investigate the causes and

limitations of the inhibition, and implications for other agents are discussed.

APPROACH

The present paper analyzes in detail the experimental results for the Fe(CO)5-inhibited

diffusion flames of Ref. [5]. The counterflow diffusion flame in that work consisted of

opposing jets of fuel and oxidizer. Since examination of the numerical results shows that

addition of the inhibitor at the mole fractions of the study does not change the flame location

(defined by the point of peak temperature), the extinction condition was characterized by the

strain rate (the maximum velocity gradient on the air side of the flame). Although techniques

such as laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) are the most accurate method of determining strain

rate, LDV seeding particles could affect the condensation of the iron species. Therefore, an

analytical approximation [21] was used to quantify the strain rate at extinction since it has

been found to be an acceptable approximation [22]. Since absolute values of the extinction

strain rate aext depend upon the flow-field description, whereas trends in aext are independent of

these [22], we normalize aext by the value for the equivalent uninhibited flame.

Numerical calculations are used to understand the powerful inhibition of Fe(CO)5 in the

counterflow diffusion flame. The equations of mass, momentum, and energy conservation are

solved using a numerical code developed by Smooke [23], which uses the Chemkin§[24] and

the transport property subroutines [25]. The potential flow boundary condition is used in the

calculations. A one-carbon mechanism [26] (17 species and 52 chemical reactions) serves as a

description of the methane oxidation. The chemical mechanism for Fe(CO)5 inhibition of

flames (12 species and 55 reactions), and necessary thermodynamic data, are compiled from a

variety of sources and are summarized in Ref. [8]. All calculations and experiments describe

flames at one atmosphere pressure, with Fe(CO)5 added to either the fuel or oxidizer stream in

concentrations of up to 500 ppm (all uses of ppm in this paper signify mole fraction · 106).

In this paper, calculations of counterflow flames are compared with the experimental

measurements of Ref. [5]. Although all six of the test cases in Ref. [5] are of interest, space

limitations force us to restrict the discussion in this paper to two cases: a typical methane-air

counterflow flame with Fe(CO)5 added to either the air or fuel stream. In order to gain insight

into the inhibition mechanism, we discuss the flame structure of uninhibited and inhibited

 

§

 Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper to adequately specify the

procedure. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment are necessarily the best available

for the intended use.
4

flames, radical production in inhibited flames, reaction pathways for iron species, and

differences between addition of inhibitor to the fuel and air side. Finally, calculations are

performed with an idealized ‘perfect’ inhibitor to examine limitations to flame inhibition in

diffusion flames.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1 shows the calculated flame structure for CH4 flowing against air, with a strain rate

within 0.1% of the extinction strain rate. The stagnation plane, where the two jet flows

converge and the velocity is zero, is at x=0.0 cm. The peak temperature is found on the air

side of the stagnation plane, about 0.1 cm away. The fuel molecules must diffuse across the

stagnation plane to reach the oxidizer. The mole fraction profiles in the plot show that there is

significant leakage of O2 into the fuel zone, and some CH4 leakage into the air side of the

flame. The mole fraction profiles of H2O, CO2 and CO are similar in shape to the temperature

profile. The peaks of the chain carriers O, H, and OH are on the air side of the flame, and the

magnitude is about equal for O and H (in contrast to a premixed flame where [H] is about

twice that of [O]). These factors have important implications for flame inhibition, as is

described below.

Air-Side Addition of Fe(CO)5

The flame considered in this section is methane and air with Fe(CO)5 added to the air stream.

As in the uninhibited case of Figure 1, the flame is located on the air side of the stagnation

plane. The measured [5] and calculated normalized extinction strain rate as a function of the

input

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

x (cm)

Mole Fraction

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Temperature (K)

H2O

CH4 / 5 T O2

Stagnation

Plane

H x 30 O x 30

OH x 30

CO

CO2

FIGURE 1: Calculated flame structure for a CH4 vs. air flame near extinction (a=522 s-1). The

stagnation plane is noted by the line at x = 0. Fuel jet location (xf) = -0.41 cm, air jet location (xair) = 0.59

cm.
5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 100 200 300 400 500

Inhibitor Mole Fraction (ppm)

Normalized a ext

Fe(CO)5 in fuel

Fe(CO)5 

in oxidizer

Perfect

 in oxidizer

Perfect in fuel

FIGURE 2: Normalized extinction strain rate for counterflow diffusion flames. Closed symbols:

measurements with the Fe(CO)5 in the oxidizer; open symbols: measurements with Fe(CO)5 in the fuel;

solid lines: calculations with Fe(CO)5; dashed lines: calculation with perfect inhibitor. Data from Ref.

[5].

Fe(CO)5 mole fraction (Xin) are shown in Figure 2 (the dashed lines are discussed in a later

section). The uncertainty of the normalized extinction strain rate measurement is ±5% [5].

For this flame, the calculated maximum temperature is approximately 1800 K at extinction.

For the uninhibited flame, the measured aext is 610 ± 30 s-1 and the calculated aext is 522 s-1.

Experimental results show that when Fe(CO)5 is added to the oxidizer stream a significant

decrease in aext results; in contrast, addition to the fuel stream produces little change in aext.

The numerical calculations qualitatively describe this behavior, and they also accurately predict

the magnitude of the inhibition at low values of Xin. For higher values of Xin, the model

predicts too much inhibition; this discrepancy has been hypothesized to be the result of

condensation, which removes inhibiting gas-phase species from the flame zone [5, 8].

For the case in which the inhibitor is added to the air, we now examine the flame structure

(Figure 3). The temperature profile in the inhibited flame is broadened because of the lower

strain rate, and the peak is shifted slightly towards the air side relative to the uninhibited case

(roughly 0.05 cm). For flames with identical strain rates, the addition of Fe(CO)5 has no

noticeable effect on the temperature profile, except very close to aext. The Fe(CO)5

decomposes near 800 K and the products are converted to the inhibiting species (FeOH,

Fe(OH)2 and FeO). The regions of high iron species mole fractions correspond to the region

of high H- and O-atom mole fraction, which allows the iron species to scavenge radicals.

Indeed, detailed examination of the reaction rate profiles shows that the depression in the

Fe(OH)2 profile and the lack of a sharp peak in the FeOH profile are caused by their rapid

reaction with H atoms, while the depression in the FeO2 curve is from its reaction with O

atoms.

Next, we examine the effect of Fe(CO)5 on the maximum flame temperature, and O and H

mole fraction as strain rate varies. In Figure 4, the calculated temperature is shown as a

function of strain rate for a given value of inhibitor loading (Xin from 0 to 200 ppm). The

point in each curve with highest strain rate represents the extinction point. For a given value
6

of Xin, increasing the strain reduces the peak temperature, since the heat release then becomes

kinetically limited; likewise, for a given strain, increasing Xin also decreases the peak

temperature. Although this reduction in temperature may seem inconsistent with the idea that

Fe(CO)5 is a purely chemical inhibitor [27], slowing the overall reaction rate reduces the heat

released in the limited time available in the flow system in the same way that limiting the time

for reaction (by increasing the strain) also limits the extent of reaction. The overall reaction

rate is lowered as the inhibitor reduces the radical populations, which slows the oxidation of

carbon monoxide. Comparing the extinction point for each inhibitor concentration (Figure 4),

it is interesting that the temperature at extinction is higher in the inhibited flames than the

uninhibited flames. This result is consistent with recent counterflow calculations for

halogenated agents [28].

0.0E+0

5.0E-5

1.0E-4

1.5E-4

2.0E-4

-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

x (cm)

Mole Fraction

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Temperature (K)

Fe(OH)2

O/7

FeOH

H/7

FeO2

Stagnation T

Plane

Fe(CO)

FIGURE 3: Iron species, O, H, and temperature with 200 ppm inhibitor in the air, near extinction (a=

257 s-1). The stagnation plane is noted by the line at x = 0. xf = -0.4 cm, xair = 0.6 cm.

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

200 300 400 500 600

Strain Rate (s-1)

25 0

100 50

200 ppm

Maximum Temperature (K)

FIGURE 4: Maximum flame temperature vs.

strain rate for Xin between 0 and 200 ppm.

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

200 300 400 500 600

Strain Rate (s-1)

25

100

200 ppm

Dashed = O atom 

Solid = H atom

0

50

Maximum Mole Fraction

FIGURE 5: Maximum mole fraction for H and

O vs. strain rate for Xin between 0 and 200 ppm.
7

Fe(CO)5

Fe

FeO2

FeO

Fe(OH)2

FeOH

+O

+H

+H2O +H2O

+H

+O2+M

+O+M

+O

FeOOH

FIGURE 6: Reaction pathways in CH4 vs. air

flames with inhibitor in the air. Thicker

arrows correspond to higher importance.

Reaction partners are next to each arrow.

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0 100 200 300 400 500

Fe(CO)5 (ppm)

Fractional Flux

H

O

257

204 173 152

257

361

204 173

152

361

434

434

0 522

FIGURE 7: Fractional H- and O-atom flux

through key iron reactions for flames near the

extinction point. The numbers at each point

refer to aext (in s-1) at that Xin.

The calculated reduction of radical mole fraction caused by Fe(CO)5 is shown in Figure 5. For

a given value of Xin, as the strain rate increases, the O- and H-atom peak mole fractions do not

change significantly until just near extinction, when they drop rapidly. For a given strain rate,

however, a small addition of inhibitor causes a sharp reduction in the peak radical mole

fractions. For example, addition of 200 ppm reduces the peak radical mole fractions by

roughly 50% (for strain rates below 250 s-1). In premixed flames, the strong reduction of Hatoms has been found to be the result of a catalytic cycle involving FeO, FeOH and Fe(OH)2

which converts H atoms into less reactive H2 molecules [9] (the O-atom mole fraction

decreases due to fast H2-O2 shuffle reactions). It is of interest to determine if the same

catalytic cycle is responsible for the reduced radical mole fractions in the present counterflow

diffusion flame.

A reaction pathway analysis is useful for elucidating the important reactions for flame

inhibition. Figure 6 presents the destruction pathway for Fe(CO)5 and its reaction products in

the counterflow flame, as generated by the graphical post-processing program Xsenkplot [29].

Since the figure is based on analysis of flames with multiple strain rates and multiple Xin, it is

meant to be qualitative only. The thickness of the arrow corresponds to the relative

importance of the reaction.

Upon heating, the Fe(CO)5 decomposes in several steps (shown as a single step for simplicity),

leaving Fe and CO. The Fe reacts with O2 to form FeO2, which then reacts with O to form

FeO. The bulk of the FeO reacts with water to begin a catalytic cycle that converts H atoms

into less reactive H2 molecules, as described by

FeO + H2O ↔ Fe(OH)2

 Fe(OH)2 + H ↔ FeOH + H2O

FeOH + H ↔ FeO + H2

Additionally, a portion of the reactions occur through a cycle involving FeOOH, FeOH, and

Fe(OH)2 in which the net result is O+H↔OH. This cycle is not important for premixed CH4-
8

air flames [8], where the O atom population is much smaller than the H atom population. In

counterflow diffusion flames, however, the peak mole fraction of O and H atom are nearly

equal, which increases the importance of the FeOH+O reaction. It should be noted that while

the peak O and H mole fractions at extinction are typically reduced by about a factor of two at

Xin = 200 ppm, peak OH is lowered much less, possibly because it is created by the cycle

described above. Further, the high O atom population in the diffusion flame leads to an

additional minor catalytic cycle in which FeO reacts with O to reform Fe thus completing a

cycle that results in O+O ↔ O2.

We further examine the inhibition effect using the technique of reaction flux analysis. We

measure the relative importance of the iron reactions by calculating the fraction of H-atom and

O-atom consumption that occurs through each reaction shown in Figure 6. To calculate the

reaction flux, the rate of each reaction consuming an H or O atom is determined at each

location in the flame and then the resulting reaction rate profile is integrated over the entire

flame. The contribution of each reaction to the total consumption is the “fractional flux” of

the species through that particular reaction. More details about the technique can be found in

Ref. [30].

The diminishing effectiveness of Fe(CO)5 at high Xin shown in Figure 2 may be partially

explained by Figure 7, which plots the fractional flux of H and O through key iron reactions as

Xin varies. The calculations are for flames nearly at extinction, and the figure includes the

actual extinction strain for that value of Xin. At low values of Xin the fractional flux through

the iron reactions increases linearly, but beyond 100 ppm, the rate of increase begins to slow.

At high Xin the catalytic cycles become 'saturated' [8]: increasing Xin does not lead to a

proportionally greater fraction of the radicals being recombined by the iron species. For a

67% increase in the mole fraction of Fe(CO)5 from 300 to 500 ppm, the total destruction flux

of either H or O through the iron cycles increases about 15%. However, as Figure 7 shows,

the fractional flux of O atom increases by just 10%, while it decreases for H atom. The

decrease in H atom fractional flux is caused by an increase in total destruction flux for Xin >

300 ppm. In particular, a large increase in the forward and reverse rates of CH4+H↔CH3+H2

occurs due to more overlap of CH4 with regions of high H-atom mole fraction. Although

saturation of the catalytic cycles is a partial explanation for the reduced effectiveness at higher

Xin, the loss of effectiveness is not fully understood, in part because the numerical model does

not include particle formation. Experimental measurements of particles in Fe(CO)5-inhibited

flames could improve understanding of the reduced effectiveness.
9

0E+0

2E-5

4E-5

6E-5

8E-5

1E-4

-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

x (cm)

Mole Fraction

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Temperature (K)

Fe(OH)2

O/35

FeOH

H/35

FeO2 T

Stagnation 

Plane

Fe(CO)5 / 3

FIGURE 8: Iron species, O atom, H atom, and temperature for flame on the air side, 200 ppm inhibitor

in the fuel, near extinction (a = 496 s-1). The stagnation plane is noted by the line at x = 0. xf = -0.4125

cm, xair = 0.5875 cm.

Fuel-Side Addition of Fe(CO)5

Recall that addition of inhibitor to the fuel results in far less inhibition than addition to the

oxidizer (Figure 2). Calculations of flame structure, in which the chemistry and transport of

the inhibitor is considered, can provide great insight into the reasons for the difference. Figure

3 showed that when the inhibitor is in the oxidizer, there is significant interaction between the

iron species and the radicals. With addition of 200 ppm of Fe(CO)5 to the fuel (Figure 8),

however, the distribution of species is significantly different: the Fe(CO)5 in the fuel stream

decomposes, the decomposition products react to form FeO2, but little of this species is able

to diffuse to the region of high O atom to form FeO. Although this result implies that

diffusion of the inhibitor to the reaction zone is the controlling process, the result is more

subtle: both transport to the correct location and reaction (of FeO2) with the proper species

(O) is necessary to form the inhibiting intermediate (FeO). (In the present flame, however, the

limitation is actually transport only. This is demonstrated by a calculation in which 200 ppm

of FeO, instead of Fe(CO)5, is added to the fuel. The exchange results in only a 2% additional

reduction in extinction strain rate.)

Although elimination of one of the steps in formation of the inhibiting species can partially

separate the chemistry and transport effects, simulating a ‘perfect inhibitor’ can provide

further insight. A perfect inhibitor is one that enters the flame as an inhibiting species, does

not decompose at high temperature, scavenges radicals at gas kinetic rates, and regenerates

itself. Babushok et al. [27] developed a model for such an inhibitor and used it to investigate

the upper limits of chemical inhibition in premixed flames. The thermodynamic and transport

properties are those of argon. Although highly idealized, the perfect inhibitor can be used to

differentiate between chemical and transport effects in counterflow flames.

We now return to Figure 2, which shows calculated normalized extinction strain rates with

addition of the perfect inhibitor to the oxidizer or fuel. As in the case of Fe(CO)5, addition to

the oxidizer has a much stronger effect than addition to the fuel. This difference remains

despite the fact that neither decomposition nor formation of inhibiting species is required for
10

the perfect inhibitor. Calculations of flame structure for the flames with perfect inhibitor in the

fuel show results similar to those described above for Fe(CO)5: when added to the fuel, the

inhibiting species cannot reach the region of high H and O atoms. Increasing the diffusivity of

the perfect inhibitor results in more inhibition, but still far less than for inhibitor addition to the

oxidizer.

These conclusions apply to the methane-air diffusion flame with a distance of about 1 mm

between the flame and the stagnation plane. For mixtures in which the flame is closer to the

stagnation plane (a heavier fuel molecule, for example), there may be more inhibition caused

by fuel-side addition of an inhibitor.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents the first detailed numerical study of the extinction of counterflow

methane-air diffusion flames by a super-effective chemical inhibitor, Fe(CO)5. The normalized

extinction strain rate for agent addition to the air stream is well-predicted by the numerical

calculations for low inhibitor concentration, and the vastly different behavior for fuel- vs. airside addition is predicted by the model. The calculations show that at a given strain rate, the

flame temperature decreases as Xin increases, and that the maximum mole fraction of H and O

decrease sharply as Xin increases. For flames near the extinction, the peak temperature

increases as Xin increases.

Reaction pathway and reaction flux analyses show that a catalytic cycle that scavenges H

atoms is responsible for most of the inhibition, and a new cycle involving FeOOH has an

additional, but minor, role. Reaction flux calculations demonstrate that the fractional flux of

H and O atoms consumed through catalytic recombination cycles involving the iron species

increases linearly as Xin increases up to about 100 ppm, and that above about 300 ppm, the

cycles do not account for an increasing fraction of the H-atom consumption.

We have presented the first detailed kinetic comparison of the difference between fuel-side

and air-side addition of a super-effective inhibitor. Our calculations show that addition of

Fe(CO)5 to the fuel side of a methane-air counterflow diffusion flame has little effect because

an insignificant amount of the inhibiting species reaches the region of high radical mole

fraction, and thus cannot enter into the catalytic cycles. Perfect inhibitor calculations show

that even an idealized ‘perfect inhibitor’ does not have a strong inhibition effect when added to

the fuel in a methane-air counterflow flame. This further supports the idea that transport of

the inhibiting species to the region of high radical mole fraction is critical.

Future work still remains on exploring Fe(CO)5’s behavior in other types of diffusion flames,

such as when the flame is on the fuel side of the stagnation plane, or when the flame is closer

to the stagnation plane. Measurements of the rates of the key reactions in the catalytic cycles,

as well as particle measurements in inhibited flames would provide important data to improve

understanding of the inhibition mechanism of iron pentacarbonyl.
11

REFERENCES

1. Lask, G. and Wagner, H. G., "Influence of Additives on the Velocity of Laminar

Flames," Eighth Symposium (International) on Combustion, pp.432-438, 1962.

2. Miller, D. R., Evers, R. L., and Skinner, G. B., "Effects of Various Inhibitors on

Hydrogen-Air Flame Speeds," Combustion and Flame, 7, 137, 1963.

3. Vanpee, M. and Shirodkar, P., "A Study of Flame Inhibition by Metal Compounds,"

Seventeenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, pp.787-795, 1979.

4. Bonne, U., Jost, W., and Wagner, H. G., "Iron Pentacarbonyl in Methane-Oxygen (or

Air) Flames," Fire Research Abstracts and Reviews, 4, 6, 1962.

5. Reinelt, D. and Linteris, G. T., "Experimental Study of the Inhibition of Premixed and

Diffusion Flames by Iron Pentacarbonyl," Twenty-Sixth Symposium (International) on

Combustion, pp.1421-1428, 1996.

6. Skaggs, R. R., McNesby, K. L., Daniel, R. G., Homan, B., and Miziolek, A. W.,

"Measurement of Hydroxyl Radical during Suppression of Low Pressure Opposed Flow

Methane/Air Diffusion Flames by Fe(CO)5, CF3Br, and N2 ," Halon Options Technical

Working Conference, pp.121-133, 1998.

7. Rumminger, M. D., Reinelt, D., Babushok, V., and Linteris, G. T., "Inhibition of Flames

by Iron Pentacarbonyl," Halon Options Technical Working Conference, pp.145-156,

1998.

8. Rumminger, M. D., Reinelt, D., Babushok, V., and Linteris, G. T., "Numerical Study of

the Inhibition of Premixed And Diffusion Flames by Iron Pentacarbonyl," Combustion

and Flame, 116, 207, 1999.

9. Jensen, D. E. and Jones, G. A., "Catalysis of Radical Recombination in Flames by Iron,"

Journal of Chemical Physics, 60, 3421, 1974.

10. Milne, T. A., Green, C. L., and Benson, D. K., "The Use of the Counter-Flow Diffusion

Flame in Studies of Inhibition Effectiveness of Gaseous and Powdered Agents,"

Combustion and Flame, 15, 255, 1970.

11. Seshadri, K. and Williams, F. A., "Effect of CF3Br on Counterflow Combustion of

Liquid Fuel with Diluted Oxygen" in Halogenated Fire Suppressants , ed. R.G. Gann,

pp. 149-182, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1975.

12. Niioka, T., Mitani, T., and Takahashi, M, "Experimental Study on Inhibited Diffusion

and Premixed Flames in a Counterflow System," Combustion and Flame, 50, 89, 1983.

13. Chelliah, H. K, Yu, G., Hahn, T. O., and Law, C. K, "An Experimental and Numerical

Study on the Global and Detailed Kinetics of Premixed and Nonpremixed Flames of

Chloromethane, Methane, Oxygen and Nitrogen," Twenty-Fourth Symposium

(International) on Combustion, pp.1083-1090, 1993.

14. Hamins, A., Trees, D., Seshadri, K., and Chelliah, H. K., "Extinction of Nonpremixed

Flames With Halogenated Fire Suppressants," Combustion and Flame, 99, 221, 1994.

15. Masri, A. R., "Chemical Inhibition of Nonpremixed Flames of Hydrocarbon Fuels With

CF3Br," Combustion Science and Technology, 96, 189, 1994.

16. Trees, D., Grudno, A., and Seshadri, K., "Experimental and Numerical Studies on

Chemical Inhibition of Nonpremixed Methane Flames by CF3Br," Combustion Science

and Technology, 124, 311, 1997.

17. Fallon, G. S., Chelliah, H. K, and Linteris, G. T., "Chemical Effects of CF3H in

Extinguishing Counterflow CO/Air/H2 Diffusion Flames," Twenty-Sixth Symposium
12

(International) on Combustion, pp.1395-1403, 1996.

18. MacDonald, M. A., Jayaweera, T. M., Fisher, E. M., and Gouldin, F. C., "Variation of

Chemically Active and Inert Flame-Suppression Effectiveness with Stoichiometric

Mixture Fraction," Twenty-Seventh Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1998, in

press.

19. MacDonald, M. A., Jayaweera, T. M., Fisher, E. M., and Gouldin, F. C., "Inhibition of

Nonpremixed Flames by Phosphorous-Containing Compounds," Combustion and Flame,

116, 166, 1999.

20. Ibiricu, M. M. and Gaydon, A. G., "Spectroscopic Studies of the Effect of Inhibitors on

Counterflow Diffusion Flames," Combustion and Flame, 8, 51, 1964.

21. Seshadri, K. and Williams, F. A., "Laminar Flow between Parallel Plates with Injection

of Reactant at High Reynolds Number," Int. J. of Heat and Mass Transfer, 21, 137,

1978.

22. Chelliah, H. K, Law, C. K, Ueda, T, Smooke, M. D, and Williams, F. A., "An

Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of the Dilution, Pressure and Flow-Field

Effects on the Extinction Condition of Methane-Air-Nitrogen Diffusion Flames,"

Twenty-Third Symposium (International) on Combustion, pp.503-511, 1991.

23. Smooke, M. D, Puri, I. K, and Seshadri, K., "A Comparison between Numerical

Calculations and Experimental Measurements of the Structure of a Counterflow

Diffusion Flame Burning Diluted Methane in Diluted Air," Twenty-First Symposium

(International) on Combustion, pp.1783-1792, 1986.

24. Kee, R. J., Rupley, F. M., and Miller, J. A., "CHEMKIN-II: A Fortran Chemical

Kinetics Package for the Analysis of Gas Phase Chemical Kinetics", Sandia National

Laboratory, SAND89-8009B, 1989.

25. Kee, R. J., Dixon-Lewis, G., Warnatz, J., Coltrin, R. E., and Miller, J. A., "A Fortran

Computer Package for the Evaluation of Gas-Phase, Multicomponent Transport

Properties", Sandia National Laboratory, SAND86-8246, 1986.

26. Peters, N., "Flame Calculations with Reduced Mechanisms - An Outline" in Reduced

Kinetic Mechanisms for Applications in Combustion Systems , ed. Peters, N. and Rogg

B., pp. 3-14, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.

27. Babushok, V., Tsang, W., Linteris, G. T., and Reinelt, D., "Chemical Limits to Flame

Inhibition," Combustion and Flame, 115, 551, 1998.

28. Lentati, A. M. and Chelliah, H. K, "Physical, Thermal and Chemical Effects of FineWater Droplets in Extinguishing Counterflow Diffusion Flames," Twenty-Seventh

Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1999, in press.

29. NIST, XSenkplot, An Interactive, Graphics Postprocessor for Numerical Simulations of

Chemical Kinetics, http://www.nist.gov/cstl/div836/xsenkplot , 1997.

30. Rumminger, M. D. and Linteris, G. T., "Inhibition of Premixed Carbon MonoxideHydrogen-Oxygen-Nitrogen Flames by Iron Pentacarbonyl," submitted to Combustion

and Flame, March 1999.