MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052864373 · doi:10.1115/gt2010-22844

Ignition and Combustion of Heavy Hydrocarbons Using an Aerosol Shock-Tube Approach

2010· article· en· W2052864373 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon Rotavera, Nolan Polley, Eric L. Petersen, Kara Scheu, Mark W. Crofton, Gilles Bourque

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2: Combustion, Fuels and Emissions, Parts A and B · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsRolls-Royce (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShock tubeShock waveCombustionAerosolShock (circulatory)Tube (container)Materials scienceIgnition systemPlumeMoving shockMechanicsNuclear engineeringChemistryThermodynamicsComposite materialPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results from a heterogeneous shock-tube approach recently demonstrated at Texas A&M University, wherein a hydrocarbon fuel is introduced in liquid phase with gaseous oxidizer, are presented. The shock tube has been designed for controlled measurement of ignition delay times, sooting phenomena, radical species concentrations, time-dependent species profiles, and nanoparticle-aided combustion using heavy hydrocarbons which are difficult to study using the traditional shock tube approach. Aerosol is generated in a high-vacuum manifold positioned 4-m from the endwall where optical and pressure-based diagnostics are stationed. The approach reduces the propensity for fuel-film deposition near the endwall avoiding optical and/or kinetic disturbances that could result. The aerosol enters the shock tube initially as a two-phase flow of liquid fuel and gaseous oxidizer/inert gas. Liquid droplets partially evaporate while resident in the shock tube, prior to shock wave generation, and are then completely vaporized behind the incident shock wave. Behind the reflected shock wave, then, resides a pure gas-phase fuel and oxidizer mixture. The primary benefit of the aerosol shock tube approach is the ability to inject fuels of low vapor pressure at high or low concentrations. The classic shock-tube approach introduces gas-phase constituents only, and has difficulty accommodating low vapor-pressure liquids, except when component partial pressures are much lower than what is usually required. In the present work, n-heptane aerosol (C7H16, Pvap, 20 °C ∼ 35 torr), was generated with O2/Ar carrier gas and dispersed in the shock tube in a uniform manner. Stoichiometric ignition delay times with temperature varied from 1240 K to 1600 K and pressure maintained near 2.0 atm are compared to gas-phase data at similar conditions and a chemical kinetic model for heptane combustion. Excellent agreement was found between the two-phase aerosol approach and the classical method involving vapor-phase n-heptane and pre-mixed gases. The measured activation energy for the stoichiometric mixture at 2.0 atm (EA = 42.3 kcal /mol), obtained with the two-phase technique, compares well with the literature value.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2: Combustion, Fuels and Emissions, Parts A and BSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207