MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327626347 · doi:10.1115/gt2007-27017

Reynolds Analog in Combustor Modeling

2007· article· en· W2327626347 on OpenAlexaff
Lei‐Yong Jiang, Ian Campbell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrandtl numberTurbulenceTurbulent Prandtl numberReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsCombustorSchmidt numberMechanicsReynolds numberScalar (mathematics)PhysicsCombustionStatistical physicsThermodynamicsClassical mechanicsMathematicsHeat transferNusselt numberChemistryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate temperature prediction is vital for the development of advanced combustion systems. The Reynolds analogy concept has been almost exclusively used in current turbulent reacting flow RANS simulations. In this paper, this hypothesis applied to a diffusion flame model combustor is discussed and assessed. Some of the numerical results obtained from a flamelet combustion model with the turbulence Prandtl/Schmidt number from 0.25 to 0.85 are presented, and compared with a benchmark experimental database. It is found that the turbulence Prandtl/Schmidt number has significant effect on the predicted temperature and species fields inside the combustor, as well as the temperature profile at the combustor wall. In contrast, its effect on the velocity field is insignificant in the range assessed. With the optimized turbulence Prandtl/Schmidt number, both velocity and scalar fields can be reasonably and quantitatively predicted. For the present configuration and operating conditions, the optimal Prandtl/Schmidt number is 0.5, lower than the commonly accepted values, ∼0.70. This study suggests that for accurate prediction of scalar transfers in turbulent reacting flows, the Reynolds analogy concept should be improved and new approaches should be developed.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207