A joint numerical study of multi-regime turbulent combustion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a joint numerical study on the Multi Regime Burner configuration. The burner design consists of three concentric inlet streams, which can be operated independently with different equivalence ratios, allowing the operation of stratified flames characterized by different combustion regimes, including premixed, non-premixed, and multi-regime flame zones. Simulations were performed on three LES solvers based on different numerical methods. Combustion kinetics were simplified by using tabulated or reduced chemistry methods. Finally, different turbulent combustion modeling strategies were employed, covering geometrical, statistical, and reactor based approaches. Due to this significant scattering of simulation parameters, a conclusion on specific combustion model performance is impossible. However, with ten numerical groups involved in the numerical simulations, a rough statistical analysis is conducted: the average and the standard deviation of the numerical simulation are computed and compared against experiments. This joint numerical study is therefore a partial illustration of the community’s ability to model turbulent combustion. This exercise gives the average performance of current simulations and identifies physical phenomena not well captured today by most modeling strategies. Detailed comparisons between experimental and numerical data along radial profiles taken at different axial positions showed that the temperature field is fairly well captured up to 60 mm from the burner exit. The comparison reveals, however, significant discrepancies regarding CO mass fraction prediction. Three causes may explain this phenomenon. The first reason is the higher sensitivity of carbon monoxide to the simplification of detailed chemistry, especially when multiple combustion regimes are encountered. The second is the bias introduced by artificial thickening, which overestimates the species’ mass production rate. This behavior has been illustrated by manufacturing mean thickened turbulent flame brush from a random displacement of 1-D laminar flame solutions. The last one is the influence of the subgrid-scale flame wrinkling on the filtered chemical flame structure, which may be challenging to 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".