Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Mechanism of tulip flame formation in highly reactive and low reactive gas mixtures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that tulip flame formation is driven by a rarefaction wave created when the flame decelerates, not by flame-front instabilities.

desk verdict Useful comparative DNS of tulip flames in H2/air versus CH4/air that supports the rarefaction-wave mechanism, but overclaims on reaction order and has an internal inconsistency in the time-ratio scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00895 v1 pith:5KSGGPJM submitted 2025-02-02 physics.flu-dyn

Chengeng Qian , Mikhail Liberman This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords tulipflamerarefactionwavelaminarvelocityaccelerationfrontinversionhydrogen/airmethane/aircompressiblereactiveflow
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish what physically turns a propagating flame front inside out to form the classic tulip flame in a tube. Using fully compressible reactive Navier-Stokes simulations with detailed chemistry for hydrogen/air and methane/air mixtures, it concludes that the rarefaction wave generated when the flame decelerates as its skirt touches the sidewalls is the primary mechanism. The strength of that wave is set mainly by the laminar flame velocity and the associated flame acceleration, which explains why faster flames form tulips sooner and with a deeper concave shape. The authors also argue that standard hydrodynamic flame-front instabilities act too slowly to cause the initial inversion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the simple rarefaction wave generated by a decelerating flame, treated as a convex piston withdrawing from the unburned gas. The paper couples this piston analogy to a thin-flame geometric model in which the flame tip advances during the finger phase according to dX_tip/dt = Theta U_fL X_tip/D, so the flame acceleration scales with the square of the laminar flame velocity. When the finger-shaped flame skirt contacts the sidewalls, the resulting deceleration produces a rarefaction wave whose axial velocity profile is nonuniform across the tube, and that nonuniform reverse flow is what turns the flame front concave. The paper also uses time-scale estimates for the rarefaction wave versus instability growth to argue that hydrodynamic instabilities are not responsible for the initial tulip formation.

What would settle it

Run two simulations with the same laminar flame velocity and flame thickness but with global reaction orders near n=2 and n=1.1, for example by tuning the pressure dependence of the burning rate, and measure the time from ignition to flame inversion in a closed tube of aspect ratio 6; the rarefaction-wave claim predicts nearly identical inversion times, whereas reaction-order control predicts a measurable shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that tulip flame inversion is a purely hydrodynamic piston effect. During acceleration the flame acts like a semi-transparent accelerating piston; when its lateral parts touch the sidewalls the flame surface shrinks, the flame decelerates, and in the unburned gas this is equivalent to a withdrawing piston that generates a rarefaction wave. In a channel this reverse flow is fastest near the tube axis and slower near the walls, imprinting a mirror-tulip axial velocity profile on the unburned gas just ahead of the flame. Since each flame element moves with the sum of the local laminar burning velocity and the local gas velocity, the front inverts. The paper shows this inversion happens faster than the characteristic times of Darrieus-Landau or thermal-diffusive instabilities, and it attributes the intensity of the rarefaction wave primarily to laminar flame velocity and flame acceleration, concluding that reaction order has little effect on tulip formation itself.

Load-bearing premise

The paper attributes the hydrogen/air versus methane/air difference mainly to laminar flame velocity, even though the two mixtures also differ in flame thickness and reaction order, so the conclusion that reaction order has little effect is inferred rather than isolated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Faster-burning mixtures will form tulip flames sooner and with a deeper concave pocket, because the deceleration-born rarefaction wave is stronger.
  • In semi-open tubes, tulip formation still occurs but later and more smoothly, since no reflected pressure waves reinforce the initial rarefaction wave.
  • In longer closed tubes, reflected pressure waves reach the flame later, so the transition to a distorted tulip flame is delayed compared with shorter tubes.
  • Flame-front instabilities such as Darrieus-Landau and thermal-diffusive instabilities are not the trigger for the initial flame-front inversion, because the rarefaction-wave time scale is much shorter.
  • At sufficiently low laminar flame speeds, the rarefaction wave may be too weak to form a tulip before buoyancy or instability effects intervene.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If reaction order really is secondary for tulip formation, simplified one-step chemistry may be adequate for predicting tulip timing in engineering models, provided it reproduces the laminar flame velocity and flame thickness.
  • For hydrogen/methane blends, tulip formation time and depth should interpolate with the blended laminar flame velocity; this follows from the mechanism but is not simulated in the paper.
  • The piston analogy implies an acoustic tuning effect: in a closed tube, changing tube length shifts when reflected pressure waves arrive, which should either reinforce or distort the tulip, and that dependence could be mapped experimentally.
  • A natural test is to vary the thermal expansion ratio or flame thickness while holding laminar flame velocity fixed in simulations, to see which parameters actually control rarefaction intensity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports 2D direct numerical simulations of stoichiometric H2/air and CH4/air flames in closed tubes with aspect ratios 6 and 12 and in a semi-open tube, using the AMReX-based PeleC solver with detailed chemical mechanisms and adaptive mesh refinement. The central claim is that the rarefaction wave generated when the flame decelerates after the flame skirt touches the sidewall is the principal physical mechanism of tulip flame formation, with faster flames producing stronger rarefaction waves and hence faster, deeper tulip flames. The paper compares H2/air (laminar flame velocity 2.43 m/s, reaction order ~2) with CH4/air (0.38 m/s, reaction order ~1.1) and concludes that laminar flame velocity and flame acceleration control tulip formation while reaction order has little effect.

Significance. If the mechanism is correct, this is a useful contribution to a long-standing debate about tulip flame formation. The simulations are physically detailed, cover several tube geometries and boundary conditions, and yield a concrete, experimentally testable prediction: faster flames form tulips more quickly and with deeper petals, with amplification in closed tubes compared with semi-open tubes. The paper also gives explicit time-scale estimates suggesting that Darrieus-Landau and thermal-diffusive instabilities are too slow to be responsible for the initial flame inversion. The main weakness is that the causal attribution to laminar flame velocity is supported only by a two-point comparison of mixtures that differ in several properties simultaneously.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Appendix B] The conclusion that "the reaction order has little effect on the formation of tulip flames" is not supported by the presented evidence. The H2/air and CH4/air cases differ simultaneously in laminar flame velocity, flame thickness, expansion ratio, sound speed, and reaction order (Tables 1 and 2). No simulation varies reaction order while holding the other flame properties fixed, so the observed differences cannot be uniquely attributed to reaction order. The fitted n values in Fig. B1 only characterize the two chosen mixtures; they are not a controlled variation. This claim should be removed, explicitly reframed as a hypothesis, or supported by targeted simulations in which n is varied at fixed Uf, Lf, and expansion ratio.
  2. [Section 3.1, Section 4, Eqs. (12)-(13)] The attribution of faster and deeper tulip formation to laminar flame velocity as "the main factor" is underdetermined by the presented comparison. The theory in Eqs. (12)-(13) is derived for fixed expansion ratio and channel width under the Clanet-Searby geometric model; it shows that acceleration increases with Uf when the other parameters are held fixed, but it cannot exclude flame-thickness, sound-speed, or Lewis-number effects when comparing H2/air with CH4/air. A more honest statement is that the simulations are consistent with the rarefaction-wave mechanism and with a stronger rarefaction wave for the faster flame, not that laminar flame velocity has been isolated as the unique controlling parameter.
  3. [Section 3.1 vs Section 4] The manuscript states in Section 3.1 that tulip flame formation for H2/air occurs "about ten times faster" than for CH4/air, but Section 4 later claims that the ratio of tulip formation times is approximately equal to the laminar-flame-velocity ratio of 6.3. These two statements are inconsistent as written. The quantitative claim needs a clear definition of tau_tulip (from which figure and which time marker), a reported value, and an estimate of uncertainty; otherwise the proportionality between tulip time and laminar flame velocity is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Table 1] The adiabatic flame temperature for H2/air is given as 2350 K in the text and 2503 K in Table 1; please reconcile these values.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence beginning "On the contrary, in the case of a methane/air flame..." appears twice almost verbatim in the same section; one occurrence should be deleted.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (17)] The numerical value lambda_max approximately 0.2 cm does not appear consistent with the formula lambda = (2 pi / 0.3) Lf using the tabulated flame thickness values; please check the formula, the units, or the quoted number.
  4. [References] Reference [50] is missing its closing bracket, and several inline equations in Section 4 (e.g., the acceleration values) are garbled by the typesetting; these should be corrected in the final manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the rarefaction-wave mechanism is tested by new DNS, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

No load-bearing step in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction. The rarefaction-wave mechanism is introduced by citing the authors' prior work [26], but the present paper provides independent, externally checkable evidence for it: new two-dimensional DNS of H2/air and CH4/air flames, reverse-flow velocity profiles, schlieren images, aspect-ratio comparisons, and semi-open-tube cases. Equations (12)-(13) are an analytic consequence of the Clanet-Searby geometric finger-flame model, not a fit of the tulip-time ratio; the claimed ratio tau_tulip(H2)/tau_tulip(CH4) ~ U_f(H2)/U_f(CH4) ~ 6.3 is read off the simulations and is not imposed by construction. The reaction-order conclusion is not circular, though it is underdetermined: H2/air and CH4/air differ simultaneously in laminar flame speed, flame thickness, expansion ratio, sound speed, and reaction order, so attributing the observed differences primarily to U_f is a confounded inference rather than a definitional equivalence. Similarly, the statement that the reaction order has little effect is an extrapolation from a two-point comparison, not a fitted-input prediction. Self-citations to [16, 26, 36, 53] are used as prior results and are externally falsifiable outside the present fitted values; they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. The paper's limitations are real validity threats, but they are not circularity under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is modest: two fitted reaction-order values from Cantera data and a set of standard modeling assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The main epistemic debt is the transfer of the rarefaction-wave mechanism from the authors' prior publication [26] and the untested separation of reaction-order effects.

free parameters (2)
  • reaction order n for H2/air = 2
    Obtained by least-squares fit of Eq. (B3) to Cantera laminar flame thickness data (Appendix B). Used to estimate pressure dependence of flame thickness and in discussion of reaction-order effects.
  • reaction order n for CH4/air = 1.13
    Obtained by least-squares fit of Eq. (B3) to Cantera data (Appendix B). The difference in n between the two mixtures is used to argue reaction order has little effect, though it is not varied independently.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional simulations with no-slip adiabatic walls and symmetry at the mid-plane reproduce the qualitative physics of tulip flame formation in three dimensions.
    Stated in Section 2.1: '2D modeling provides good qualitative but not quantitative agreement with experimental data.' Acknowledged limitation, but the central time-ratio claim is inferred from 2D simulations.
  • domain assumption A decelerating flame can be modeled as a semi-transparent piston; the rarefaction wave it generates has a non-uniform reverse flow that inverts the flame front.
    This is the mechanism established in the authors' prior paper [26] and used as the interpretive framework here (Section 3, 'The underlying physics...').
  • domain assumption The reduced methane mechanism 15S-26R and the Li et al. hydrogen mechanism are accurate enough for flame dynamics in tubes.
    Section 2.1; the CH4 mechanism is validated against DRM-19 and GRI mechanisms, not against the present simulation results.
  • domain assumption Linear stability estimates with wavelength approximately equal to channel width bound the DL and TD instability timescales.
    Section 4, Eqs. 14-16; assumes the relevant perturbation wavelength is the channel width, which ignores smaller-wavelength perturbations.
  • domain assumption The Clanet-Searby geometric model for the finger flame phase (Eq. 12) applies to both mixtures.
    Used to derive Eq. 13 and the time scaling; it is a cited prior model, treated as exact here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mechanism of tulip flame formation in highly reactive and low reactive gas mixtures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KSGGPJM

@misc{pith2026250200895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mechanism of tulip flame formation in highly reactive and low reactive gas mixtures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KSGGPJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00895}
}
read the original abstract

The early stages of flame dynamics and the development and evolution of tulip flames in closed tubes of various aspect ratios and in a semi-open tube are studied by solving the fully compressible reactive Navier-Stokes equations using a high-order numerical method coupled to detailed chemical models in a stoichiometric hydrogen/air and methane/air mixtures. The use of adaptive mesh refinement provides adequate resolution of the flame reaction zone, pressure waves, and flame-pressure wave interactions. The purpose of this study is to gain a deeper insight into the influence of chemical kinetics on the combustion regimes leading to the formation of a tulip flame and its subsequent evolution. The simulations highlight the effect of flame thickness, flame velocity, and reaction order on the intensity of the rarefaction wave generated by the flame during the deceleration phase, which is the principal physical mechanism of tulip flame formation. The obtained results explain most of the experimentally observed features of tulip flame formation, e.g. faster tulip flame formation with deeper tulip shape for faster flames compared to slower flames.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00895 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. shows computed schlieren images and streamlines for H2/air flame (a); and for CH4/air flame (b) for selected times during tulip flame formation. The red dashed lines in the figures show the location of the unburned gas axial velocity profile at 0.5mm ahead of the flame front, where it was measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    M. A. Liberman, C. Qian, C. Wang, Dynamics of flames in tubes with no-slip walls and the mechanism of tulip flame formation. Combust. Sci. Technol. 195 (2023) 1637-1665

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Z. Luo, H. Qi, B. Su, T. Wang, R. Li, F. Cheng, T. Zhang, A macroscopic and microscopic study of hydrogen-rich explosions under inert gas conditions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 61 (2024) pp. 316-328

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Schouten, J.P.J

    J.A. Schouten, J.P.J. Michels, R. Janssen-van Rosmalen, Effect of H2-injection on the thermodynamic and transportation properties of natural gas. Int J Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) pp. 1173 – 1180

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Liang, X

    H. Liang, X. Yan, E. Shi, X. Wang, C. Qi, J. Ding, L. Zhang, L. Chen, X. Lv, J. Yu, Effect of hydrogen blending on ammonia/air explosion characteristics under wide equivalence ratio. Energy 297 (2024) pp. 131334. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2024.131334

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Erdener, B

    B.C. Erdener, B. Sergi, O.J. Guerra, A.L. Chueca, K. Pambour, C. Brancucci, B.-M. Hodge, A review of technical and regulatory limits for hydrogen blending in natural gas pipelines. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 48 (2023) pp. 5595–5617

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    J. Wang, Z. Huang, C. Tang, J. Zheng, Effect of hydrogen addition on early flame growth of lean burn natural gas–air mixtures. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010) pp.7246–7252

    work page 2010

  7. [6]

    Y. Wang, X. Zhou, L. Liu, Study on the mechanism of the ignition process of ammonia/hydrogen mixture under high-pressure direct-injection engine conditions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021) pp.38871-38886

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Zhang, J

    Z. Zhang, J. Hu, D. Yang, Z. Yin, K. Lu, D. Tan, A comprehensive assessment over the environmental impact and combustion efficiency of using ammonia/hydrogen/diesel blends in a diesel engine. Energy 303 (2024) pp. 131955

    work page 2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    W. Yang, X. Yang, K. Zhang, C. Liu, Y. Zhang, Experimental study on the explosion flame propagation behavior of premixed CH4/H2/air mixtures with inert gas injection. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 84 (2024) pp. 106–117

    2024

  2. [9]

    H. Deng, Z. Yao, G. Chen, X. Wen, F. Wang, Q. Zhang, J. Dong, M. Huang, Numerical study of the effects of laminar flame speed on flame dynamics in the early stages of flame propagation in two-dimensional half open tubes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 46 (2021) pp. 1288-1301

    2021

  3. [10]

    B. Qi, H. Deng, M. Yu, H. Li, X. Yang, Numerical investigation on the effects of reaction orders on the flame propagation dynamic behaviours for premixed gas in a closed tube. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (2022) pp. 8037 – 8047

    2022

  4. [11]

    Ellis, Flame movement in gaseous explosive mixtures

    O. Ellis, Flame movement in gaseous explosive mixtures. Fuel Sci. 7 (1928) pp. 502–508

    1928

  5. [12]

    Dunn-Rankin, Combustion Phenomena: Selected Mechanisms of Flame Formation, Propagation and Extinction

    D. Dunn-Rankin, Combustion Phenomena: Selected Mechanisms of Flame Formation, Propagation and Extinction. Ed. J. Jarosinski and B. Veyssiere. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 2009

    2009

  6. [13]

    Searby, Combustion Phenomena, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2009

    G. Searby, Combustion Phenomena, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2009

    2009

  7. [14]

    X. Li, H. Xiao, Q. Duan, J. Sun, Numerical study of premixed flame dynamics in a closed tube: Effect of wall boundary condition. Proc. Combust. Inst. 38 (2021) pp. 2075–2082

    2021

  8. [15]

    T. Shen, M. Li, H. Xiao, Propagation of premixed hydrogen-air flame initiated by a planar ignition in a closed tube. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (2022) pp. 4903-4915. 30

    2022

  9. [16]

    tulip flame

    C. Qian, M. A. Liberman, On the mechanism of “tulip flame” formation: The effect of ignition sources. Phys. Fluids 35 (2023) pp. 116122 (1-13); doi: 10.1063/5.0174234

    2023 doi

  10. [17]

    G. H. Markstein, A shock-tube study of flame front-pressure wave interaction. Symp. (Int.) Combust., Proc. Combust. Inst. 6 (1957) pp. 387–398

    1957

  11. [18]

    Liberman, V.V

    M.A. Liberman, V.V. Bychkov, S.M. Golberg, L.E Eriksson, Numerical Study of Curved Flames under Confinement. Combust. Sci. Technol. 136 (1998) pp. 221-251

    1998

  12. [19]

    Clanet, G

    C. Clanet, G. Searby, On the ‘tulip flame’ phenomenon, Combust. Flame, 105 (1996) 225– 238

    1996

  13. [20]

    Starke, P

    R. Starke, P. Roth, An experimental investigation of flame behavior during cylindrical vessel explosions. Combust. Flame, 66 (1986) pp. 249-259

    1986

  14. [21]

    Matalon, P

    M. Matalon, P. Metzener, The propagation of premixed flames in closed tubes. J. Fluid Mech., 336 (1997) pp. 331–350

    1997

  15. [22]

    Metzener, M

    P. Metzener, M. Matalon, Premixed flames in closed cylindrical tubes. Combust. Theor. Model., 5 (2001) pp. 463–483

    2001

  16. [23]

    Kurdyumov, M

    V.N. Kurdyumov, M. Matalon, Self-accelerating flames in long narrow open channels Proc. Combust. Inst. 35 (2015) pp. 921–928

    2015

  17. [24]

    H. Xiao, D. Makarov, J. Sun, V. Molkov, Experimental and numerical investigation of premixed flame propagation with distorted tulip shape in a closed duct. Combust. Flame, 159 (2012) pp. 1523–1538

    2012

  18. [25]

    Xiao, R.W

    H. Xiao, R.W. Houim, E.S. Oran, Formation and evolution of distorted tulip flames. Combust. Flame, 162 (2015) pp. 4084–4101

    2015

  19. [27]

    Ponizy, A

    B. Ponizy, A. Claverie, B. Veyssière, Tulip flame the mechanism of flame front inversion. Combust. Flame, 161 (2014) 3051–3062

    2014

  20. [28]

    Zheng, Z

    K. Zheng, Z. Song, C. Song, Q. Jia, J. Ren, X. Chen, Investigation on the explosion of ammonia/hydrogen/air in a closed duct by experiments and numerical simulations. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 79 (2024) pp. 1267–1277

    2024

  21. [29]

    Zheng, M

    K. Zheng, M. Yu, Y. Liang, L. Zheng, X. Wen, Large eddy simulation of premixed hydrogen/methane/air flame propagation in a closed duct. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (2018) pp 3871–84

    2018

  22. [30]

    M. Yu, K. Zheng, L. Zheng, T. Chu, P. Guo, Scale effects on premixed flame propagation of hydrogen/methane deflagration. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (2015) pp. 13121–1333

    2015

  23. [31]

    J. Li, Z. Zhao, A. Kazakov, F. L. Dryer, An updated comprehensive kinetic model of hydrogen combustion. Int. J. Chem. Kinetics, 36(10) (2004) pp. 566-575

    2004

  24. [32]

    Bioche , G

    K. Bioche , G. Ribert , L. Vervisch, Simulating upstream flame propagation in a narrow channel after wall preheating: Flame analysis and chemistry reduction strategy. Combustion and Flame, 200 (2019) pp. 219-231. 31

    2019

  25. [33]

    Kazakov, R

    A. Kazakov, R. Franklar, Reduced reaction sets based on GRI-Mech 1.2, 1994, ( http://www.me.berkeley.edu/drm/ )

    1994

  26. [34]

    Frenklach, H

    M. Frenklach, H. Wang, C.-L. Yu, M. Goldenberg, C.T. Bowman, R.K. Hanson, D.F. Davidson, E.J. Chang, G.P. Smith, D.M. Golden, W.C. Gardiner, V. Lissianski, GRI- Mech—an optimized detailed chemical reaction mechanism for methane combustion, Technical Report, Gas Research Instit...

    1995

  27. [35]

    Frenklach, N.W

    M. Frenklach, N.W. Moriarty, B. Eiteneer, M. Goldenberg, C.T. Bowman, R.K. Hanson, S. Song, W.C. Gardiner Jr., V.V. Lissianski, G.P. Smith, D.M. Golden, and Z. Qin, Gri mech 3.0. http://www.me.berkeley.edu/gri-mech/

  28. [36]

    Liberman, C

    M.A. Liberman, C. Wang, C. Qian, J.N. Liu, Influence of chemical kinetics on spontaneous waves and detonation initiation in highly reactive and low reactive mixtures, Combust. Theory and Modelling, 23 (2019) pp. 467–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830.2018.1551578

    2019

  29. [37]

    A. Ern, V. Giovangigli, Fast and accurate multicomponent transport property evaluation J. Comput. Phys. 120(1) (1995) pp. 105-116

    1995

  30. [38]

    Henry de Frahan, J.S

    M.T. Henry de Frahan, J.S. Rood, M.S. Day, et al. PeleC: An adaptive mesh refinement solver for compressible reacting flows. Int. Journal of high-performance computing Applications, 37(2) (2023) pp. 115-131

    2023

  31. [39]

    Jiang, C.W

    G.S. Jiang, C.W. Shu, Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 126(1) (1996) pp. 202-228

    1996

  32. [40]

    Speck, D

    R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, et al. A multi-level spectral deferred correction method. BIT Numerical Mathematics, 55(3) (2015) pp. 843-867

    2015

  33. [41]

    Gardner, D.R

    D.J. Gardner, D.R. Reynolds, C.S. Woodward, et al. Enabling new flexibility in the SUNDIALS suite of nonlinear and differential/algebraic equation solvers. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). 48(3) (2022) pp. 1-24

    2022

  34. [42]

    Zhang, A

    W. Zhang, A. Almgren, V. Beckner, et al. AMReX: a framework for block-structured adaptive mesh refinement. Journal of Open Source Software. 4(37) (2019) pp. 1370 (1-4)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Poinsot, D

    T. Poinsot, D. Veynante, Theoretical and numerical combustion. RT Edwards, Inc., 2005

    2005

  36. [44]

    Ya. B. Zeldovich, G. I. Barenblatt, V. B. Librovich, G. M. Makhviladze, Mathematical theory of combustion and explosion. New York: Consultants Bureau; 1985

    1985

  37. [45]

    Matalon, B.J

    M. Matalon, B.J. Matkowsky, Flames as gasdynamic discontinuities. J. Fluid Mech. 124 (1982) pp. 239-259

    1982

  38. [46]

    Landau, E.M

    L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1989

    1989

  39. [47]

    X. Shen, C. Zhang, G. Xiu, H. Zhu, Evolution of premixed stoichiometric hydrogen/air flame in a closed duct. Energy 176 (2019) pp. 265-271

    2019

  40. [48]

    Ivanov, A.D

    M.F. Ivanov, A.D. Kiverin, I.S. Yakovenko, and M.A. Liberman, Hydrogen-Oxygen Flame Acceleration and Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition in Three-dimensional Rectangular Channels with no-slip Walls. Int, J, Hydrogen Energy, 38, 16427-16440 (2013). 32

    2013

  41. [49]

    Zheng, M

    K. Zheng, M. Yu, L. Zheng, X. Wen, T. Chu, L. Wang, Experimental study on premixed flame propagation of hydrogen/methane/air deflagration in closed ducts. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 42 (2017) pp. 5426–5438. [50 B. Lei, Z. Wu. Z. Guo, Z. Zhao, Study of the influence of flame inst...

    2017

  42. [51]

    tulip flame

    M. Gonzalez, R. Borghi, A. Saouab, Interaction of a flame front with its self-generated flow in an enclosure: The “tulip flame” phenomenon. Combust. Flame, 88 (1992) pp. 201–220

    1992

  43. [52]

    Dunn-Rankin and R.F

    D. Dunn-Rankin and R.F. Sawyer, Tulip flames: Changes in shapes of premixed flames propagating in closed tubes, Experiments in Fluids 24 (1998), pp. 130–140

    1998

  44. [53]

    Qian and M

    C. Qian and M. Liberman, The influence of flame-pressure waves collisions on the development and evolution of tulip flames. preprint NORDITA 2024-020

    2024

  45. [54]

    Bychkov and M.A

    V.V. Bychkov and M.A. Liberman, Dynamics and Stability of Premixed Flames, Phys. Reports, 325 (2000) pp.115 – 237

    2000

  46. [55]

    Zhang, X

    C. Zhang, X. Shen, J.X. Wen, G. Xiu, The behaviour of methane/hydrogen/air premixed flame in a closed channel with inhibition. Fuel 265 (2020) pp.116810 (1-10)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.