A computational framework for predicting laminar reactive flows with soot formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerical modeling is an attractive option for cost-effective development of new high-efficiency, soot-free combustion devices. However, the inherent complexities of hydrocarbon combustion require that combustion models rely heavily on engineering approximations to remain computationally tractable. More efficient numerical algorithms for reacting flows are needed so that more realistic physics models can be used to provide quantitative soot predictions. A new, highly-scalable combustion modeling tool has been developed specifically for use on large multiprocessor computer architectures. The tool is capable of capturing complex processes such as detailed chemistry, molecular transport, radiation, and soot formation/destruction in laminar diffusion flames. The proposed algorithm represents the current state of the art in combustion modeling, making use of a second-order accurate finite-volume scheme and a parallel adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) algorithm on body-fitted, multiblock meshes. Radiation is modeled using the discrete ordinates method (DOM) to solve the radiative transfer equation and the statistical narrow-band correlated-k (SNBCK) method to quantify gas band absorption. At present, a semi-empirical model is used to predict the nucleation, growth, and oxidation of soot particles. The framework is applied to two laminar coflow diffusion flames which were previously studied numerically and experimentally. Both a weakly-sooting methane–air flame and a heavily-sooting ethylene–air flame are considered for validation purposes. Numerical predictions for these flames are verified with published experimental results and the parallel performance of the algorithm analyzed. The effects of grid resolution and gas-phase reaction mechanism on the overall flame solutions were also assessed. Reasonable agreement with experimental measurements was obtained for both flames for predictions of flame height, temperature and soot volume fraction. Overall, the algorithm displayed excellent strong scaling performance by achieving a parallel efficiency of 70% on 384 processors. The proposed algorithm proved to be a robust, highly-scalable solution method for sooting laminar flames.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".