Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

The paper argues that a dissipation-rate-driven flamelet model predicts roughly half the net chemical energy addition of one-step kinetics in turbine-stator combustion, and enables the first JP-5 turbine-stator simulation.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

An epsilon-based flamelet model with detailed JP-5 chemistry is applied in a turbine stator passage, predicting strain-rate quenching, flame stand-off, and about half the net energy addition predicted by one-step kinetics.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection First JP-5 flamelet simulation in a turbine stator, but the headline 50% energy-addition gap rests on an uncalibrated C_vd=1 that the paper itself says should be below 1. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.18235 v1 pith:LTZQ3OS4 submitted 2025-12-20 physics.flu-dyn

Flamelet Model with Epsilon Tracking in a Turbine Stator

Sylvain L. Walsh , Yalu Zhu , Feng Liu , William A. Sirignano This is my paper
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords turbine-burnerflamelet modelepsilon trackingstrain-rate quenchingturbine statorJP-5 combustionHyChem mechanismRANS combustion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to establish that a flamelet model driven by the resolved turbulent dissipation rate (epsilon) is the right way to couple turbulence and finite-rate chemistry in turbine-burner flows, and that this choice changes engineering predictions, not just numerical details. In a transonic turbine stator with methane burning in vitiated air, the epsilon-tracking model gives peak temperatures about 100 K lower and roughly 50% lower net chemical energy addition per unit mass than a one-step kinetics model, because flame stand-off and strain-rate-induced quenching suppress reaction over much of the passage. The paper then reports the first JP-5 turbine-stator simulation using a 119-species HyChem mechanism, in which endothermic pyrolysis of JP-5 and exothermic oxidation of its fragments appear on the resolved scale. A sympathetic reader would care because turbine-burner performance, blade thermal loads, and the oxidizer available for later stages all look different under this model than under simplified kinetics.

Core claim

The central claim is that epsilon, the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate, is a workable and physically consistent parameter for setting the strain rate S* imposed on subgrid flamelets, and that using it yields different predictions in a real stator geometry. A flamelet is a thin laminar flame whose internal structure is precomputed in mixture-fraction space; with the axisymmetric counterflow constant S1 = 1/2 and C_vd = 1, Eq. (22) gives S* = 0.5 sqrt(epsilon/nu). The flamelet libraries are computed for a range of S* and pressure, and whenever the local S* exceeds the pressure-dependent flammability limit, the library returns a quenched solution with zero source terms. For methane/vi

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the epsilon-to-strain-rate closure of Eq. (22): S* = 1/2 sqrt(C_vd epsilon / nu [S1^2 + 1 - S1]), with S1 = 1/2 for the axisymmetric counterflow and C_vd = 1. This takes epsilon, obtained from the k-omega SST turbulence model through epsilon = C_mu k omega, and turns it into the inflow strain rate of steady flamelet solutions tabulated as functions of mixture fraction, strain rate, and pressure. A beta-PDF for mixture fraction and a delta-PDF for epsilon convert those tables into Favre-averaged chemical source terms, and a positivity-preserving scaling couples the tabulated sources to the resolved species concentrations. The flammability limit in S* is the switch:

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the coefficient C_vd in the strain-rate formula equals 1 and that epsilon can be represented by a single value (a delta-PDF); if either assumption gives way, the predicted strain rates, quenching boundaries, stand-off distances, and the roughly 50% energy reduction all shift.

What would settle it

Repeat the CH4 stator case with C_vd = 0.5 and with a log-normal or beta PDF for epsilon; if the net chemical energy addition and stand-off distance move back close to the one-step values, the central 50% claim fails. A well-resolved LES or DNS of the same accelerating mixing layer that measures the actual flamelet strain rate at the quenching boundary would calibrate C_vd directly.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For the same methane/vitiated-air case, the epsilon-based flamelet model predicts about 262 kJ/kg net chemical energy addition versus 507 kJ/kg for one-step kinetics — roughly half — so one-step models likely overstate how much energy a turbine-burner stator adds.
  • Quenching is controlled by strain rate relative to a pressure-dependent flammability limit; flame stand-off, reaction-zone extent, and the downstream energy plateau follow from that limit rather than from resolved-scale chemistry alone.
  • The flamelet model leaves significantly more oxygen at the stator outlet than the one-step model, which matters for multi-stage turbine-burner concepts that plan to inject fuel again downstream.
  • JP-5 combustion in a turbine stator is tractable with detailed chemistry: the 119-species HyChem kinetics is represented by 14 transported species plus one lumped species, so practical-fuel simulations become affordable.
  • Near-wall temperature trends invert between models: the flamelet cases give higher trailing-edge wall temperatures, about 40 K above the non-reacting case, despite lower peak temperatures, which is relevant to blade thermal design.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The quantitative 50% reduction hinges on C_vd = 1 and a delta-PDF for epsilon; the same stator case rerun with C_vd = 0.5 or with a broader PDF for epsilon is the cheapest direct test of whether the reduction is robust or an artifact of closure choice.
  • The predicted stand-off distance responds strongly to inlet turbulence intensity, which suggests that a laboratory or DNS test matching measured stand-off could be used to calibrate C_vd.
  • The downstream JP-5 artifact — residual fuel persisting where temperatures should keep pyrolyzing — indicates that the binary quench/no-quench rule is too coarse; allowing partially burning or unsteady flamelets in the library could remove it.
  • If the flamelet prediction of extra residual oxygen survives calibration, engine-cycle performance estimates built on one-step kinetics will need revision, since staged turbine-burner thrust depends on exactly that oxygen.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents two-dimensional RANS simulations of reacting flow in a VKI LS89 turbine stator passage using an 'epsilon-based' flamelet model. The model determines the flamelet inflow strain rate S* from the resolved turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate via Eq. (22), with C_vd = 1, and retrieves chemical source terms and heat release from precomputed counterflow flamelet libraries. Methane/vitiated-air combustion is compared against a one-step kinetics (OSK) model, yielding roughly 50% lower net chemical energy addition for the flamelet model (ΔH = 262.5 vs 507.5 kJ/kg in Table 1), attributed to strain-rate-induced flamelet quenching. The same model is applied for the first time to JP-5 combustion using the HyChem A3 mechanism (119 species, 841 reactions), capturing endothermic pyrolysis and exothermic oxidation. The paper explicitly acknowledges the absence of experimental data, the uncalibrated nature of C_vd, the use of a delta-PDF for epsilon, and a downstream JP-5 pyrolysis artifact.

Significance. If the central predictions held, the work would be a useful step toward practical turbine-burner design: it is, to my knowledge, the first JP-5 turbine-stator simulation with a detailed HyChem mechanism, and the epsilon-based flamelet coupling is a physically motivated alternative to progress-variable approaches. The paper also honestly exposes its own limitations—lack of experimental validation, uncalibrated C_vd, delta-PDF closure, and a known downstream artifact. However, the headline quantitative result (the ~50% reduction in net energy addition relative to OSK) is controlled by closure choices whose sensitivity is not assessed. The current evidence is therefore not sufficient to establish the quantitative claims, though the modeling framework is defensible and the paper is suitable for major revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II.C, Eq. (22)] The paper explicitly states that physical validity of the counterflow solution requires C_vd < 1, yet adopts C_vd = 1. Since S* is proportional to sqrt(C_vd), this is the maximum admissible strain rate, not a neutral or conservative choice. The flamelet flammability-limit contours, flame stand-off distances, and the Table 1 ΔH values all depend on this constant. If DNS calibration gave C_vd = 0.5, S* would drop by about 29%, shifting quenching boundaries and reducing the flamelet/OSK gap. No sensitivity study over C_vd is provided. At minimum, the authors should report ΔH and quenching maps for, say, C_vd = 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, or re-frame the 50% figure as an upper-bound estimate rather than a prediction.
  2. [§II.C, Eq. (21)] The presumed-shape PDF closure uses a delta-PDF for epsilon (and pressure), with the paper itself stating this reflects 'the current absence of a more appropriate statistical description' and that the assumption 'may warrant further investigation.' Because epsilon enters through S* and thus directly determines whether the flamelet is burning or quenched, neglecting the variance of epsilon is a load-bearing closure, not a cosmetic one. A sensitivity test with an assumed lognormal or clipped-Gaussian PDF, or at least a bounding estimate of the effect of epsilon variance on the burning/quenched partition, is needed to justify the quantitative results.
  3. [§IV (general validation)] There is no experimental or DNS validation for the turbine-stator configuration, as the paper acknowledges. The comparison between the epsilon-based flamelet model and OSK isolates the effect of combustion chemistry but does not validate either model's absolute predictions. The conclusions are therefore stated too strongly: phrases such as 'the epsilon-based formulation predicts approximately 50% lower net chemical energy addition' (Abstract) should be qualified as model predictions contingent on the uncalibrated closure constants. If the authors intend this as a demonstration of capability, the language should be softened; if as a quantitative engineering prediction, validation data or at least a grid-convergence and closure-sensitivity study is required.
  4. [§IV.C, JP-5 downstream artifact] The paper acknowledges that downstream of the trailing edge the model returns zero source terms because strain-rate-induced quenching occurs upstream, leaving JP-5 mass fraction overpredicted and lighter hydrocarbons underpredicted. This artifact directly affects the JP-5 species fields and, potentially, the integrated energy balance (ΔH = 346.0 kJ/kg in Table 1). The authors should quantify the downstream region affected by this artifact and estimate its contribution to the reported global metrics. Without this, the JP-5 energy addition and near-wall temperature conclusions are not fully reliable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II.C, sentence after Eq. (26)] Typo: 'Consequenctially' should be 'Consequently'.
  2. [§IV.A, paragraph on multistage implications] Typo: 'multiple staged are considered' should be 'multiple stages are considered'.
  3. [§III.B] The solver description says 'Jameson-Schmidt-T urkel scheme'; the space in 'T urkel' should be removed.
  4. [§IV.A, CH4 configuration] The reported flame stand-off distance of 'roughly 2.5 cm downstream of the inlet' should be expressed relative to the blade chord (76.674 mm) or pitch to aid physical interpretation, since the passage is compact.
  5. [Table 1] The mass-flow units 'kg/m/s' are non-standard; presumably kg/(m·s). Please clarify in the table or text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Eq. (22)'s S* mapping adopts C_vd=1 from a same-author preprint while admitting C_vd is undetermined; the headline quenching and ~50% energy reduction are a consequence of that self-cited ansatz, though the simulations and energy accounting are otherwise self-contained.

specific steps
  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section II.C, Eq. (22) and following paragraph (used in IV.A, Figs. 5b/6 and Table 1)]
    "For the counterflow solution to be physically valid, the constraint 𝐶𝑣𝑑 < 1 must be satisfied. While this coefficient remains to be definitively determined from direct numerical simulation (DNS) data, a value of 𝐶𝑣𝑑 = 1 is adopted in the present study, consistent with the assumptions outlined in [23]."

    Eq. (22) sets S* = 1/2 sqrt(C_vd * eps / nu * [S1^2 + 1 - S1]), so S* scales as sqrt(C_vd). The paper adopts C_vd = 1 by invoking [23], a preprint by overlapping authors (Sirignano and Walsh) that is explicitly under review, while admitting the coefficient is undetermined and that validity requires C_vd < 1. The flamelet-quenching boundaries in Figs. 5b and 6, and hence the Table 1 result of ~262.5 vs 507.5 kJ/kg (the headline ~50% reduction), are obtained by comparing this S* field to the flammability limit. No DNS calibration or sensitivity study for C_vd is provided, so the central quantitative claim is not an independent prediction but an output of a self-cited, uncalibrated ansatz placed at the boundary of the stated validity range.

full rationale

The paper does not reverse-engineer any output from a fitted parameter, and the ~50% figure is a genuine simulation result from the energy balance, OSK benchmark, and flamelet libraries. The flamelet computation, species transport, and JP-5 HyChem simulation are self-contained and not circular. However, the distinguishing element of the model — the epsilon-to-flamelet-strain coupling in Eq. (22) — is load-bearing for the quenching locations and therefore for the headline energy-reduction claim. That coupling is justified by a same-author preprint [23] and by the choice C_vd = 1, which the paper itself says remains to be determined from DNS and should be less than 1 for physical validity. The text also flags other unclosed assumptions (delta-PDF for epsilon; need for sensitivity analysis), but those are modeling limitations, not circularity. Because the central quantitative result depends on a self-cited ansatz rather than on calibration or external validation, I assign a score of 4: some self-citation is load-bearing, yet the simulations and comparisons still contain substantial independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central numbers (quenching limits, stand-off, 50% energy reduction) are governed by closure choices: C_vd = 1, delta-PDF for epsilon and pressure, C_chi = 2, and the RANS turbulence model. These are all plausible but none are validated in this paper against DNS or experiments.

free parameters (4)
  • C_vd (viscous dissipation coefficient) = 1.0
    Appears in Eq. 22; the paper states it both must be less than 1 and remains to be determined from DNS. Setting it to 1 directly sets the flamelet strain rate and hence the quenching location.
  • C_chi (turbulence/scalar time-scale ratio) = 2.0
    Set after Eq. 8 to close the mean scalar dissipation rate; this sets the mixture-fraction variance sink and thus the beta-PDF width.
  • C_mu (k-epsilon constant) = 0.09
    Used in Eq. 23 to obtain epsilon from k and omega; it is a standard model constant but it directly feeds S*.
  • Inlet turbulence intensity (via inlet k and omega) = unspecified
    The paper notes S* at the inlet is set by freestream turbulence intensity and that a sensitivity analysis would be warranted. It controls the stand-off distance.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Flamelet equations in mixture-fraction space with the counterflow scalar dissipation form chi(Z) = 2 S*/pi exp(2 erfc^{-1}(2Z)^2) adequately represent the subgrid flame structure in a transonic accelerating passage
    Invoked in Section II.C when the flamelet libraries are generated; this ignores momentum-equation effects and multidimensional/vorticity effects.
  • ad hoc to paper Delta-PDF for epsilon and pressure in Eq. 21
    The paper explicitly states this reflects the current absence of a better statistical description; it removes intermittency of the dissipation rate, directly affecting the flaming/quenching boundary.
  • domain assumption The k-omega SST RANS turbulence model adequately represents the resolved turbulence statistics in this turbine passage
    RANS sits behind the entire velocity and k/omega fields, and epsilon is derived from the SST k and omega.
invented entities (1)
  • None beyond the modeling closure itself no independent evidence
    purpose: No new physical species, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced
    The paper introduces no new physics entity; the new ingredient is the closure mapping from epsilon to S*.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flamelet Model with Epsilon Tracking in a Turbine Stator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTZQ3OS4

@misc{pith2026251218235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flamelet Model with Epsilon Tracking in a Turbine Stator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTZQ3OS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.18235}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Combustion within a two-dimensional turbine stator passage is numerically investigated in the context of the turbine-burner concept using a Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes framework coupled with a novel flamelet model. The formulation links resolved-scale turbulence quantities with subgrid flamelet dynamics through the local turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate, $\epsilon$, which determines the flamelet inflow strain rate. For the first time, combustion of JP-5 is considered in a turbine stator passage as a practical fuel. This is achieved by solving transport equations for 14 major species on the resolved scale, while chemical source terms are obtained from precomputed flamelet libraries based on the HyChem A3 mechanism comprising 119 species and 841 elementary reactions. Model performance is assessed against methane combustion using both a one-step kinetics model and an $\epsilon$-based flamelet formulation employing a 13-species skeletal mechanism. The $\epsilon$-based formulation predicts lower peak flame temperatures due to dissociation effects and approximately 50\% lower net chemical energy addition per unit mass compared with the one-step model, as a result of flame stand-off and downstream strain-rate-induced quenching. For JP-5, the simulations capture combined endothermic pyrolysis and exothermic oxidation processes, leading to vertically displaced reaction zones, increased near-wall temperatures, and larger resolved-scale reaction regions due to the higher flamelet flammability limit relative to methane.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Performance Increases for Gas-T urbine Engines Through Combustion Inside the Turbine,

    Sirignano, W. A., and Liu, F., “Performance Increases for Gas-T urbine Engines Through Combustion Inside the Turbine,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999, pp. 111–118. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5398

    work page doi:10.2514/2.5398 1999

  2. [2]

    Turbojet and Turbofan Engine Performance Increases Through Turbine Burners,

    Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Turbojet and Turbofan Engine Performance Increases Through Turbine Burners,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2001, pp. 695–705. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5797

    work page doi:10.2514/2.5797 2001

  3. [3]

    A review of gas turbine engine with inter-stage turbine burner,

    Yin, F., and Rao, A. G., “A review of gas turbine engine with inter-stage turbine burner,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 121, 2020, p. 100695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2020.100695

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Turbine Burners: Performance Improvement and Challenge of Flameholding,

    Sirignano, W. A., Dunn-Rankin, D., Liu, F., Colcord, B., and Puranam, S., “Turbine Burners: Performance Improvement and Challenge of Flameholding,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 50, No. 8, 2012, pp. 1645–1669. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J051562

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j051562 2012

  5. [5]

    Diffusion flame in a two-dimensional, accelerating mixing layer,

    Sirignano, W. A., and Kim, I., “Diffusion flame in a two-dimensional, accelerating mixing layer,” Physics of Fluids , Vol. 9, No. 9, 1997, pp. 2617–2630. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.869378

    work page doi:10.1063/1.869378 1997

  6. [6]

    Ignition and Flame Studies for an Accelerating Transonic Mixing Layer,

    Fang, X., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Ignition and Flame Studies for an Accelerating Transonic Mixing Layer,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2001, pp. 1058–1066. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5844

    work page doi:10.2514/2.5844 2001

  7. [7]

    Ignition and flame studies for a turbulent accelerating transonic mixing layer,

    Mehring, C., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W., “Ignition and flame studies for a turbulent accelerating transonic mixing layer,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virigina, 2001. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-190

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2001-190 2001

  8. [8]

    Combustion in a Transonic Flow with Large Axial and Transverse Pressure Gradients,

    Cai, J., Icoz, O., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Combustion in a Transonic Flow with Large Axial and Transverse Pressure Gradients,” Seattle, 2001, pp. 1–9

    2001

  9. [9]

    Ignition and flame studies for turbulent transonic mixing in a curved duct flow,

    Cai, J., Icoz, O., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W., “Ignition and flame studies for turbulent transonic mixing in a curved duct flow,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virigina, 2001. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-189

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2001-189 2001

  10. [10]

    Nonpremixed Combustion in an Accelerating Transonic Flow Undergoing Transi- tion,

    Cheng, F., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Nonpremixed Combustion in an Accelerating Transonic Flow Undergoing Transi- tion,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 45, No. 12, 2007, pp. 2935–2946. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.31146

    work page doi:10.2514/1.31146 2007

  11. [11]

    Nonpremixed Combustion in an Accelerating Turning Transonic Flow Undergoing Transition,

    Cheng, F., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Nonpremixed Combustion in an Accelerating Turning Transonic Flow Undergoing Transition,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 46, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1204–1215. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.35209. 18

    work page doi:10.2514/1.35209 2008

  12. [12]

    Reacting Mixing-Layer Computations in a Simulated Turbine-Stator Passage,

    Cheng, F., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Reacting Mixing-Layer Computations in a Simulated Turbine-Stator Passage,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2009, pp. 322–334. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.37739

    work page doi:10.2514/1.37739 2009

  13. [13]

    Numerical Investigation of Diffusion Flame in Transonic Flow with Large Pressure Gradient,

    Zhu, Y ., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Numerical Investigation of Diffusion Flame in Transonic Flow with Large Pressure Gradient,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2024, pp. 519–532. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B39341

    doi:10.2514/1.b39341 2024

  14. [14]

    Large-Eddy Simulation of Reacting Flow in a Turbine Stage,

    Zhu, Y ., Walsh, S. L., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Large-Eddy Simulation of Reacting Flow in a Turbine Stage,” AIAA SCITECH 2025, Orlando, Florida, 2025. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-1129, paper 2025-1129

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2025-1129 2025

  15. [15]

    The Structure of Diffusion Flames,

    Bilger, R. W., “The Structure of Diffusion Flames,” Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 13, No. 1-6, 1976, pp. 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102207608946733

    work page doi:10.1080/00102207608946733 1976

  16. [16]

    Local Quenching Due to Flame Stretch and Non-Premixed Turbulent Combustion,

    Peters, N., “Local Quenching Due to Flame Stretch and Non-Premixed Turbulent Combustion,” Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 30, No. 1-6, 1983, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102208308923608

    work page doi:10.1080/00102208308923608 1983

  17. [17]

    Laminar diffusion flamelet models in non-premixed turbulent combustion,

    Peters, N., “Laminar diffusion flamelet models in non-premixed turbulent combustion,” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1984, pp. 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1285(84)90114-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0360-1285(84)90114-x 1984

  18. [18]

    Laminar flamelet concepts in turbulent combustion,

    Peters, N., “Laminar flamelet concepts in turbulent combustion,” Symposium (International) on Combustion , Vol. 21, No. 1, 1988, pp. 1231–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0082-0784(88)80355-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0082-0784(88)80355-2 1988

  19. [19]

    Turbulent Accelerating Combusting Flows with Methane- Vitiated Air Flamelet Model,

    Walsh, S. L., Zhan, L., Mehring, C., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Turbulent Accelerating Combusting Flows with Methane- Vitiated Air Flamelet Model,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 63, No. 4, 2025, pp. 1474–1489. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J064259

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j064259 2025

  20. [20]

    Progress -variable approach for large -eddy simulation of turbulent combustion,

    Pierce, C. D., “Progress -variable approach for large -eddy simulation of turbulent combustion,” Ph.D., Stanford University, United States – California, 2001. ISBN: 9780493383156

    2001

  21. [21]

    Progress-variable approach for large-eddy simulation of non-premixed turbulent combustion,

    Pierce, C. D., and Moin, P ., “Progress-variable approach for large-eddy simulation of non-premixed turbulent combustion,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Vol. 504, 2004, pp. 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112004008213

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112004008213 2004

  22. [22]

    Performance of Flamelet Models with Epsilon Tracking for Diffusion Flame Simulations,

    Walsh, S. L., Zhu, Y ., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Performance of Flamelet Models with Epsilon Tracking for Diffusion Flame Simulations,” AIAA SCITECH 2026 Forum, Orlando, Florida, 2026

    2026

  23. [23]

    Flamelet Connection to Turbulence Kinetic Energy Dissipation Rate,

    Sirignano, W. A., Hellwig, W., and Walsh, S. L., “Flamelet Connection to Turbulence Kinetic Energy Dissipation Rate,” , Sep

  24. [24]

    Coefficients for calculating thermodynamic and transport properties of individual species,

    Mcbride, B. J., Gordon, S., and Reno, M. A., “Coefficients for calculating thermodynamic and transport properties of individual species,” Tech. Rep. NASA-TM-4513, Oct. 1993

    1993

  25. [25]

    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612701

    Peters, N., Turbulent Combustion, Cambridge Monographs on Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612701

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612701 2000

  26. [26]

    A two-variables formalism for the treatment of chemical reactions in turbulent H2—Air diffu- sion flames,

    Janicka, J., and Kollmann, W., “A two-variables formalism for the treatment of chemical reactions in turbulent H2—Air diffu- sion flames,” Symposium (International) on Combustion , Vol. 17, No. 1, 1979, pp. 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0082- 0784(79)80043-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0082- 1979

  27. [27]

    Ten Y ears of Industrial Experience with the SST Turbulence Model,

    Menter, F. R., Kuntz, M., and Langtry, R., “Ten Y ears of Industrial Experience with the SST Turbulence Model,” Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer 4, edited by K. Hanjalic, Y . Nagano, and M. Tummers, Begell House, Danbury, CT, 2003, pp. 625–632

    2003

  28. [28]

    Chemical kinetic modeling of hydrocarbon combustion,

    Westbrook, C. K., and Dryer, F. L., “Chemical kinetic modeling of hydrocarbon combustion,” Progress in Energy and Com- bustion Science, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1984, pp. 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1285(84)90118-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0360-1285(84)90118-7 1984

  29. [29]

    Three-dimensional, rotational flamelet closure model with two-way coupling,

    Sirignano, W. A., “Three-dimensional, rotational flamelet closure model with two-way coupling,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 945, 2022, p. A21. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2022.562

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2022.562 2022

  30. [30]

    Inward swirling flamelet model,

    Sirignano, W. A., “Inward swirling flamelet model,” Combustion Theory and Modelling , Vol. 26, No. 6, 2022, pp. 1014–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830.2022.2103452

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Vortex stretching of non-premixed, diluted hydrogen/oxygen flamelets,

    Hellwig, W., Shi, X., and Sirignano, W. A., “Vortex stretching of non-premixed, diluted hydrogen/oxygen flamelets,” Com- bustion and Flame, Vol. 273, 2025, p. 113900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2024.113900

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Three-dimensional vorticity effects on extinction behaviour of laminar flamelets,

    Hellwig, W., Shi, X., and Sirignano, W. A., “Three-dimensional vorticity effects on extinction behaviour of laminar flamelets,” Combustion Theory and Modelling , Vol. 29, No. 1, 2025, pp. 62–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13647830.2024.2438778. 19

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    FlameMaster, A C++ Computer Program for 0D Combustion and 1D Laminar Flame Calculations. Version V4.2.1,

    Pitsch, H., “FlameMaster, A C++ Computer Program for 0D Combustion and 1D Laminar Flame Calculations. Version V4.2.1,” , 2022. URL https://www.itv.rwth-aachen.de/downloads/flamemaster/

    2022

  34. [34]

    Foundational Fuel Chemistry Model Version 1.0 (FFCM-1),

    Smith, G. P ., Tao, Y ., and Wang, H., “Foundational Fuel Chemistry Model Version 1.0 (FFCM-1),” , 2016. URL http:// nanoenergy.stanford.edu/ffcm1

    2016

  35. [35]

    Critical kinetic uncertainties in modeling hydrogen/carbon monoxide, methane, methanol, formaldehyde, and ethylene combustion,

    Tao, Y ., Smith, G. P ., and Wang, H., “Critical kinetic uncertainties in modeling hydrogen/carbon monoxide, methane, methanol, formaldehyde, and ethylene combustion,” Combustion and Flame , Vol. 195, 2018, pp. 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. combustflame.2018.02.006

    doi:10.1016/j 2018

  36. [36]

    Combustion dynamics of ten-injector rocket engine using flamelet progress variable,

    Zhan, L., Nguyen, T. M., Xiong, J., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Combustion dynamics of ten-injector rocket engine using flamelet progress variable,” Combustion and Flame, Vol. 267, 2024, p. 113538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2024. 113538

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2024 2024

  37. [37]

    A physics-based approach to modeling real-fuel combustion chemistry - I. Evidence from experiments, and thermodynamic, chemical kinetic and statistical considerations,

    Wang, H., Xu, R., Wang, K., Bowman, C. T., Hanson, R. K., Davidson, D. F., Brezinsky, K., and Egolfopoulos, F. N., “A physics-based approach to modeling real-fuel combustion chemistry - I. Evidence from experiments, and thermodynamic, chemical kinetic and statistical considerations,” Combustion and Flame, Vol. 193, 2018, pp. 502–519. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2018

  38. [38]

    A physics-based approach to modeling real-fuel combustion chemistry – II. Reaction kinetic models of jet and rocket fuels,

    Xu, R., Wang, K., Banerjee, S., Shao, J., Parise, T., Zhu, Y ., Wang, S., Movaghar, A., Lee, D. J., Zhao, R., Han, X., Gao, Y ., Lu, T., Brezinsky, K., Egolfopoulos, F. N., Davidson, D. F., Hanson, R. K., Bowman, C. T., and Wang, H., “A physics-based approach to modeling real-fuel combustion chemistry – II. Reaction kinetic models of jet and rocket fuels,...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.03.021 2018

  39. [39]

    Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Simulations of the HyShot II Scramjet,

    Pečnik, R., Terrapon, V . E., Ham, F., Iaccarino, G., Pitsch, H., and Aiaa, M., “Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Simulations of the HyShot II Scramjet,” Associate Fellow AIAA. AIAA JOURNAL, Vol. 50, No. 8, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J051473

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j051473 2012

  40. [40]

    An efficient flamelet-based combustion model for compressible flows,

    Saghafian, A., Terrapon, V . E., and Pitsch, H., “An efficient flamelet-based combustion model for compressible flows,” Com- bustion and Flame, Vol. 162, No. 3, 2015, pp. 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.08.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.08.007 2015

  41. [41]

    The impacts of three flamelet burning regimes in nonlinear combustion dynamics,

    Nguyen, T. M., and Sirignano, W. A., “The impacts of three flamelet burning regimes in nonlinear combustion dynamics,” Combustion and Flame, Vol. 195, 2018, pp. 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.03.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.03.031 2018

  42. [42]

    Spontaneous and Triggered Longitudinal Combustion Instability in a Single-Injector Liquid-Rocket Combustor,

    Nguyen, T. M., and Sirignano, W. A., “Spontaneous and Triggered Longitudinal Combustion Instability in a Single-Injector Liquid-Rocket Combustor,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 57, No. 12, 2019, pp. 5351–5364. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J057743

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j057743 2019

  43. [43]

    Neural Network Flame Closure for a Turbulent Combustor with Unsteady Pressure,

    Shadram, Z., Nguyen, T. M., Sideris, A., and Sirignano, W. A., “Neural Network Flame Closure for a Turbulent Combustor with Unsteady Pressure,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2021, pp. 621–635. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J059721

    doi:10.2514/1.j059721 2021

  44. [44]

    Physics-aware neural network flame closure for combustion instability modeling in a single-injector engine,

    Shadram, Z., Nguyen, T. M., Sideris, A., and Sirignano, W. A., “Physics-aware neural network flame closure for combustion instability modeling in a single-injector engine,” Combustion and Flame , Vol. 240, 2022, p. 111973. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.combustflame.2021.111973

    arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Predictions of Channel and Boundary-Layer Flows with a Low-Reynolds-Number Turbulence Model,

    Chien, K.- Y ., “Predictions of Channel and Boundary-Layer Flows with a Low-Reynolds-Number Turbulence Model,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1982, pp. 33–38. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.51043

    work page doi:10.2514/3.51043 1982

  46. [46]

    Aero-Thermal Performance of a T wo-Dimensional Highly Loaded Transonic Turbine Nozzle Guide Vane: A Test Case for Inviscid and Viscous Flow Computations,

    Arts, T., and Lambert de Rouvroit, M., “Aero-Thermal Performance of a T wo-Dimensional Highly Loaded Transonic Turbine Nozzle Guide Vane: A Test Case for Inviscid and Viscous Flow Computations,” Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 114, No. 1, 1992, pp. 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2927978

    work page doi:10.1115/1.2927978 1992

  47. [47]

    Numerical Investigation of Stator Clocking Effects on the Downstream Stator in a 1.5-Stage Axial Turbine,

    Zhu, Y ., Luo, J., and Liu, F., “Numerical Investigation of Stator Clocking Effects on the Downstream Stator in a 1.5-Stage Axial Turbine,” ASME Turbo Expo 2017: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition, GT2017-63273 , 2017. https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2017-63273

    work page doi:10.1115/gt2017-63273 2017

  48. [48]

    Flow Computations of Multi-Stages by URANS and Flux Balanced Mixing Models,

    Zhu, Y ., Luo, J., and Liu, F., “Flow Computations of Multi-Stages by URANS and Flux Balanced Mixing Models,” Science China Technological Sciences, Vol. 61, 2018, pp. 1081–1091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-017-9262-9

    doi:10.1007/s11431-017-9262-9 2018

  49. [49]

    Influence of Blade Lean Together with Blade Clocking on the Overall Aerodynamic Performance of a Multi-Stage Turbine,

    Zhu, Y ., Luo, J., and Liu, F., “Influence of Blade Lean Together with Blade Clocking on the Overall Aerodynamic Performance of a Multi-Stage Turbine,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 80, 2018, pp. 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018. 07.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2018 2018

  50. [50]

    Computational fluid dynamics for turbomachinery,

    Liu, F., and Zhu, Y ., “Computational fluid dynamics for turbomachinery,”Gas Turbine Compressors and Fans: Fundamentals, Design, and Analysis , edited by S. R. Wellborn, T. I.-P . Shih, and V . Y ang, AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Reston, V A, 2025, pp. 193–366. https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781624107221.0193.0366, section: 5. 20

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Simulation of Multi-Injector H2-O2 Rocket Combustion Instability,

    Zhu, Y ., Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., “Simulation of Multi-Injector H2-O2 Rocket Combustion Instability,” AIAA Journal , Vol. Article in Advance, 2025. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J065542

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j065542 2025

  52. [52]

    Numerical solution of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge Kutta time stepping schemes,

    Jameson, A., Schmidt, W., and Turkel, E., “Numerical solution of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge Kutta time stepping schemes,” 14th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference , Fluid Dynamics and Co-located Conferences, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1981. 21

    1981

  53. [2024]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.04929, in journal review

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.04929

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.