Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Skeletal Reaction Models for Gasoline Surrogate Combustion

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.18853 v1 pith:6KY2V5QP submitted 2025-04-03 cs.CE

classification cs.CE
keywords modelmodelsskeletalreactionspeciesdetailedgasolineimplicit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Skeletal reaction models are derived for a four-component gasoline surrogate model via an instantaneous local sensitivity analysis technique. The sensitivities of the species mass fractions and the temperature with respect to the reaction rates are estimated by a reduced-order modeling (ROM) methodology. Termed "implicit time-dependent basis CUR (implicit TDB-CUR)," this methodology is based on the CUR matrix decomposition and incorporates implicit time integration for evolving the bases. The estimated sensitivities are subsequently analyzed to develop skeletal reaction models with a fully automated procedure. The 1389-species gasoline surrogate model developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is selected as the detailed kinetics model. The skeletal reduction procedure is applied to this model in a zero-dimensional constant-pressure reactor over a wide range of initial conditions. The performances of the resulting skeletal models are appraised by comparison against the results via the LLNL detailed model, and also predictions via other skeletal models. Two new skeletal models are developed consisting of 679 and 494 species, respectively. The first is an alternative to an existing model with the same number of species. The predictions with this model reproduces the detailed models vital flame results with less than 1% errors. The errors via the second model are less than 10%.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools