MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of physical soot inception model in normal and inverse laminar diffusion flames

2022· article· en· W4306654348 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCombustion and Flame · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology
KeywordsSootLaminar flowDiffusionDiffusion flameInverseMechanicsMaterials scienceThermodynamicsChemistryCombustionPhysicsMathematicsPhysical chemistryCombustorGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the extensive studies, accurate and reliable modeling of the soot inception process, especially at high pressure conditions , amenable to multi-dimensional flame simulations remains a challenge. In this study, the physical inception model was comprehensively evaluated in the fully-resolved simulations of laminar normal diffusion flame (NDF) and inverse diffusion flame (IDF) at elevated pressures. The effects of inception models on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and soot predictions were quantitatively analyzed, including the selection of soot precursors and collision efficiency models. The results show that the quantitative PAH predicted by different collision efficiency models can differ by an order of magnitude. Compared to the constant efficiency, the temperature-dependent collision efficiency was found to improve the quantitative PAH predictions and the prediction of the spatial soot distribution in NDF, with an increased level of soot on the flame centerline . The inclusion of small-sized PAH species (such as A 2 , A 2 R 5 , and A 3 ) as soot precursors was also found to improve the quantitative prediction of soot volume fraction. The physical inception model performs well in NDF using the optimal parameters. Moreover, simultaneous measurements of PAH and soot were performed in IDF configuration for the evaluation of the physical inception model. Contrary to NDF, PAHs and soot are formed on the outer side of the flame and cannot be oxidized in IDF. The experiment observed that the PAHs concentration increased in the post-flame region, while the soot concentration remained unchanged. However, the opposite trend was obtained in simulations, that is, the PAHs concentration decreased while the soot concentration increased, because the physical inception model predicts the inception behavior in the post-flame area, resulting in persistent transformation of PAHs into soot particles. To improve the predictions in IDF, the radical effects in the inception process need to be considered in the model.

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 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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · 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