Fuel Variation Effects in Propagation and Stabilization of Turbulent Counter-Flow Premixed Flames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensitivity to stretch and differential diffusion of chemical species are known to influence premixed flame propagation, even in the turbulent environment where mass diffusion can be greatly enhanced. In this context, it is convenient to characterize flames by their Lewis number (Le), a ratio of thermal-to-mass diffusion. The work reported in this paper describes a study of flame stabilization characteristics when the Le is varied. The test data is comprised of Le ≪ 1 (Hydrogen), Le ≈ 1 (Methane), and Le > 1 (Propane) flames stabilized at various turbulence levels. The experiments were carried out in a Hot exhaust Opposed-flow Turbulent Flame Rig (HOTFR), which consists of two axially-opposed, symmetric turbulent round jets. The stagnation plane between the two jets allows the aerodynamic stabilization of a flame, and clearly identifies fuel influences on turbulent flames. Furthermore, high-speed Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), using oil droplet seeding, allowed simultaneous recordings of velocity (mean and rms) and flame surface position. These experiments, along with data processing tools developed through this study, illustrated that in the mixtures with Le ≪ 1, turbulent flame speed increases considerably compared to the laminar flame speed due to differential diffusion effects, where higher burning rates compensate for the steepening average velocity gradient, and keeps these flames almost stationary as bulk flow velocity increases. These experiments are suitable for validating the ability of turbulent combustion models to predict lifted, aerodynamically-stabilized flames. In the final part of this paper, we model the three fuels at two turbulence intensities using the FGM model in a RANS context. Computations reveal that the qualitative flame stabilization trends reproduce the effects of turbulence intensity, however, more accurate predictions are required to capture the influences of fuel variations and differential diffusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".