Exact(1)
Results are presented for the flames HM1, HM2 and HM3, using the 19-species ARM2 reduced chemical mechanism, and comparison is made with previous numerical simulations of the same flames.
Similar(59)
Variations of comparable magnitude are predicted by detailed kinetic modeling of the same flame using a published mechanism.
Large-eddy simulations (LES) of the same flame were used to predict OH, density, and mixture fraction temporal statistics.
Dilution with CO2 was observed to strengthen the pressure and temperature dependence compared to Ar-diluted flames of the same flame temperature.
The model was also used to simulate the center line characteristics of the same flame, but with the secondary air preheated to 500°C.
The comparison in based on both one-dimensional (1D) unsteady tests of a premixed methane air flame, and unsteady two-dimensional tests of the same flame interacting with a counterrotating vortex pair.
The chemical structure of a methane counterflow diffusion flame and of the same flame doped with 1000 ppm (molar) of either jet fuel or a 6-component jet fuel surrogate was analyzed experimentally, by gas sampling via quartz microprobes and subsequent GC/MS analysis, and computationally using a semi-detailed kinetic mechanism for the surrogate blend.
The emphasis is on simultaneous application of multiple laser techniques in flames having relatively simple fuels and flow geometries, as well as separate application of complementary diagnostics in the same flames.
When compared to our earlier measurements of soot concentrations in the same flames, soot inception in the annular region is found to occur at the interface between the fluorescing PAH and the region of high radical concentrations.
In the present work, Laser-induced Fluorescence (LIF) measurements of OH are obtained in the same flames.
For the final product of nanoparticles in the same flame field, the results show that the increasing of precursor loading leads to the larger agglomerated particles with larger size distribution.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com