In Fig. 5, ODT results for the one-dimensional strained laminar flame (a = 2400 s− 1) are compared to results from the OPPDIF solver of the CHEMKIN package . This strain rate corresponds to the bulk strain rate of the current counterflow configuration. Results are centered about the stagnation point, with OPPDIF results offset by 0.078D0.078D to obtain a clearer comparison. It can be seen that Temsirolimus the normalized axial velocity profile u/Uuu/Uu decreases from unity at the reactants nozzle to −3.45 at the counterflowing product stream nozzle tip. Within the domain, the ODT velocity profile, and therefore local strain rate, underestimates the OPPDIF results. This shows that our linear approximation for the pressure source term in Eq. (12) does not accurately reflect the spatial variation of pressure in OPPDIF. However, near the stagnation point x/D=0x/D=0 the velocity profile shows good agreement with OPPDIF data. In this region the dilatation model has a large influence on the velocity field. The temperature and major and minor species profiles are almost identical. Due to the previously mentioned lower strain rate encountered by ODT, a very slight discrepancy is observed, whereby the ODT profiles are more rounded. Here, the lower strain rate allows diffusion to broaden the ODT curves slightly more.