A new reduced reaction mechanism of a surrogate fuel for kerosene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The introduction of detailed chemical reaction mechanisms for aviation fuels into complex multidimensional fluid dynamics problems is not practical at the present time. Simplified reaction mechanisms that have been thoroughly evaluated must be developed to address specific issues arising in realistic combustor configurations. A reduced chemical kinetic mechanism features 210 elemental reactions (including 92 reversible reactions and 26 irreversible reactions) and 50 species for the ignition and combustion of n‐decane was compiled and validated for a wide range of combustion regimes. Validations were performed using experimental measurements on a premixed flame of Jet‐A1, O2 and N2, stabilised at 1 atm on a flat‐flame burner, as well as from n‐decane shock‐tube ignition experiments. Numerical calculations were performed using this reduced mechanism and the detailed mechanism respectively for n‐decane surrogate fuel. The calculated values of ignition delay times at pressures of 12, 50 bar and equivalence ratio is 1.0, 2.0, respectively and the main reactants and main products mole fractions agree well with experimental data. The present study shows that this reduced mechanism for the n‐decane surrogate can be employed to predict premixed combustion of kerosene. © 2012 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".