Flame–turbulence interaction near and during blow-off of lean premixed flames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flameholding has been studied for decades but premixed flame-flow interaction near the point of blow-off, in practical combustion devices, still raises interesting questions. While theoretical ideas about blow-off generally consider the disruption of a reaction–diffusion balance (e.g., strain-based extinction) or a convection–reaction balance (well-stirred reactor), these balances have not been quantified previously during an actual blow-off event. In this work, strain-flame alignment and enstrophy budgets are investigated far from, near, and during total blow-off for a swirl injector. To quantify these, a two-flame, periodic model of interacting methane–air flames is constructed, fully resolving the flame structure using adaptive mesh refinement and detailed chemical kinetics. The flow is resolved down to twice the estimated Kolmogorov length scale in the reactant stream. Near blow-off, the Reynolds (Re), Damköhler (Da) and Karlovitz (Ka) numbers are estimated to be 24400, 0.1 and 250 respectively, which places the blow-off condition in the distributed/broken-reaction zones regime. Results indicate that the flame is passive with respect to alignment to the fluid-dynamic strain rate field but not with respect to vorticity dynamics and baroclinic torque may compete with or even exceed vortex-stretching as a source or sink of enstrophy. Species transport budgets, extracted during the final moments of total blow-off, indicate reaction–diffusion balances persist to the end. Scalar gradients are not observed to thicken to the point of distributing but exhibit complex dependencies on stretch effects.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".