A computational study of soot formation and flame structure of coflow laminar methane/air diffusion flames under microgravity and normal gravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A numerical study is conducted of methane–air coflow diffusion flames at microgravity (μg) and normal gravity (1g), and comparisons are made with experimental data in the literature. The model employed uses a detailed gas phase chemical kinetic mechanism that includes PAH formation and growth, and is coupled to a sectional soot particle dynamics model. The model is able to accurately predict the trends observed experimentally with reduction of gravity without any tuning of the model for different flames. The microgravity sooting flames were found to have lower temperatures and higher volume fraction than their normal gravity counterparts. In the absence of gravity, the flame radii increase due to elimination of buoyance forces and reduction of flow velocity, which is consistent with experimental observations. Soot formation along the wings is seen to be surface growth dominated, while PAH condensation plays a more major role on centreline soot formation. Surface growth and PAH growth increase in microgravity primarily due to increases in the residence time inside the flame. The rate of increase of surface growth is more significant compared to PAH growth, which causes soot distribution to shift from the centreline of the flame to the wings in microgravity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".