Analysis of the Influence of the Conduction Sub-Model Formulation on the Modeling of Laser-Induced Incandescence of Diesel Soot Aggregates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser-induced incandescence (LII) is a powerful diagnostic technique allowing quantifying soot emissions in flames and at the exhaust of combustion systems. It can be advantageously coupled with modeling approaches to infer information on the physical properties of combustion-generated particles (including their size), which implies formulating and solving balance equations accounting for laser-excited soot heating and cooling processes. Properly estimating soot diameter by time-resolved LII (TiRe-LII), nevertheless, requires correctly evaluating the thermal accommodation coefficient α T driving the energy transferred by heat conduction between soot aggregates and their surroundings. To analyze such an aspect, an extensive set of LII signals has been acquired in a Diesel spray flame before being simulated using a refined model built upon expressions accounting for soot heating by absorption, annealing, and oxidation as well as cooling by radiation, sublimation, conduction, and thermionic emission. Within this framework, different conduction sub-models have been tested while a corrective factor allowing the particle aggregate properties to be taken into account has also been considered to simulate the so-called shielding effect. Using a fitting procedure coupling design of experiments and a genetic algorithm-based solver, the implemented model has been parameterized so as to obtain simulated data merging on a single curve with experimentally monitored ones. Eventually, values of the thermal accommodation coefficient have been estimated with each tested conduction sub-model while the influence of the aggregate size on the so-inferred α T has been analyzed.
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.
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 it