Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

This paper claims that a RANS tabulated-chemistry model retaining preferential and differential diffusion at both the thermochemical and transport levels reproduces the DNS flame length, heat-release distribution, and the characteristic equ

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 13:47 UTC pith:AQSU5G33

load-bearing objection Competent, candid extension of a preferential-diffusion tabulated-chemistry model to RANS; the qualitative results are convincing, but the quantitative agreement is partly inherited from DNS-fitted inlet data and selected closure constants. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18993 v1 pith:AQSU5G33 submitted 2026-07-21 physics.flu-dyn

Preferential and differential diffusion in RANS simulation of lean hydrogen flames with tabulated chemistry

Alex M. Garcia , Emiliano M. Fortes , Eduardo J. P\'erez-S\'anchez , Daniel Mira , Marco Vivenzo , Michael Gauding , Heinz Pitsch , Nico Schmitz
show 1 more author
Christian Wuppermann
This is my paper
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords lean hydrogen combustionpreferential diffusiondifferential diffusiontabulated chemistryRANSturbulence-chemistry interactionslot burner flamesuper-adiabatic temperature
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.

Lean hydrogen flames are hard to model because hydrogen's unusually fast diffusion makes the local mixture composition and temperature drift from the global values, producing equivalence-ratio shifts and temperatures above the adiabatic value. This paper tries to show that a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) treatment, which is cheap enough for engineering use, can carry those effects if the tabulated-chemistry model keeps preferential and differential diffusion in the transported scalar equations, not just in the flamelet table. Using a lean premixed hydrogen-air slot flame at two Reynolds numbers and DNS as reference, it reports that the RANS model with cross-diffusion between the progress variable and mixture fraction reproduces the flame length, heat-release distribution, and the super-adiabatic branches. The authors also demonstrate that a unity-Lewis-number version and a version where the effects appear only in the table miss these features. The contribution is evidence that thermo-diffusive physics is not out of reach for RANS, provided the transport-level cross-diffusion terms and the turbulence closures are handled together.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that preferential and differential diffusion can be retained in RANS tabulated chemistry by transporting the progress variable and the Bilger mixture fraction with molecular diffusion coefficients extracted from a flamelet table built with mixture-averaged diffusion and the Soret effect, and by closing turbulence-chemistry interaction with a presumed beta-PDF. The decisive ingredient is the cross-diffusion term in the mixture-fraction equation, which makes the mixture fraction respond to progress-variable gradients; without it, the mixture fraction behaves as a passive scalar and the local equivalence-ratio variation and super-adiabatic temperature branches seen

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of Favre-averaged transport equations for the normalized progress variable and the mixture fraction, with four molecular diffusion coefficients (normal and cross) obtained from the flamelet database. The cross-diffusion coefficient connecting the mixture-fraction flux to the progress-variable gradient is the mechanism that produces preferential-diffusion-driven equivalence-ratio variation; the corresponding term in the temperature/heat-release fields creates the super-adiabatic branches. A presumed beta-PDF integrates the laminar manifold over the first and second moments of the two control variables, and the unclosed turbulent transport is closed with a t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unclosed constants Sct,c = Sct,z = 0.5 and Cd,c = Cd,z = 3.0, selected with the standard k-omega model, are close enough to case-independent that the reported DNS agreement is not an artifact of tuning; the paper's own scan shows the best turbulent Schmidt number differs between the two Reynolds numbers (about 0.6 versus about 0.4).

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to run the same RANS setup with the turbulent Schmidt number fixed at the value implied by one case (for example, 0.6 for Re=5500) and apply it to the other case (Re=11000) without adjustment, then compare the flame-tip temperature and heat-release profiles to DNS; if the agreement collapses, the reported reproduction of the super-adiabatic branches depends on case-fitted constants rather than on the model itself.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, RANS with this tabulated-chemistry closure can be used as a low-cost engineering tool for lean hydrogen burners, capturing flame length and heat-release layout without DNS/LES cost.
  • The comparison with the unity-Lewis and table-only variants implies that both the thermochemical table and the transport equations must carry preferential/differential diffusion; putting the effects in only one place loses the super-adiabatic branches.
  • The sensitivity analysis implies the model constants are not universal: the best turbulent Schmidt number shifts from about 0.6 at Re=5500 to about 0.4 at Re=11000, so practical applications need a calibration step tied to the turbulence model.
  • The accuracy is bounded by the Reynolds-stress closure: the k-epsilon model overpredicts turbulent kinetic energy and erases the preferential-diffusion features, so turbulence-model choice is part of the claim.
  • Including enthalpy as an additional control variable and adding heat losses are named by the paper as the next steps toward practical application.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the cross-diffusion term is the mechanism, an a priori test against DNS could isolate its accuracy: compare the modeled cross-diffusion flux with the actual diffusive flux of mixture fraction in the DNS fields, and the agreement or mismatch would show where the closure carries the physics.
  • Editorial extension: the near-zero mixture-fraction variance in the fully premixed case suggests a reduced RANS set (mean progress variable, mean mixture fraction, progress-variable variance) may be sufficient here, but in stratified or non-premixed hydrogen flames the mixture-fraction variance and an independent turbulent Schmidt number would become active and need separate calibration.
  • Editorial extension: the case-dependent optimal turbulent Schmidt number hints that a state-dependent closure (rather than a constant) is a natural, testable improvement; the paper stops short of proposing it.
  • Editorial extension: since the turbulence-chemistry interaction model does not explicitly include the flame-surface enhancement from thermo-diffusive instabilities, the reported agreement may degrade in regimes where those instabilities dominate; testing at higher turbulence or different equivalence ratios would expose this limit.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript extends a tabulated-chemistry (TC) model with preferential/differential diffusion (TC PD) to a RANS framework. Favre-averaged transport equations for the progress variable and mixture fraction, including molecular cross-diffusion coefficients, are closed with a presumed beta PDF and a standard k–omega turbulence model. The model is applied to a lean H2/air slot flame at two Reynolds numbers (5500 and 11000) and compared with DNS. Two additional variants, TC Le1 and TC PD-F, isolate the thermochemical versus transport contributions of preferential/differential diffusion, and sensitivity studies examine the turbulent Schmidt number, scalar-dissipation constants, and turbulence model. The authors report that the TC PD model reproduces DNS flame length, heat-release distribution, equivalence-ratio variation, and super-adiabatic temperature branches.

Significance. If the result holds, it would show that low-cost RANS can capture thermo-diffusive effects that are important for lean hydrogen combustion. The manuscript has clear strengths: the transport-equation derivation is inherited from a parameter-free formulation [13]; the one-dimensional laminar flame is validated against detailed chemistry; the assessment uses two Reynolds numbers, three TC versions, four turbulence models, and systematic sensitivity sweeps; and the budget analyses in Section 5.2 provide mechanistic insight. The principal caveat is that the quantitative agreement is not fully a priori: the inlet velocity profile is fitted to DNS-averaged data, and the closure constants were selected with the standard k–omega results in view. The abstract's predictive claim should therefore be read as a calibrated demonstration unless a genuinely blind cross-case test is added.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.6 and §4] The abstract claims that the RANS TC-PD model “correctly reproduces” the DNS flame, but the closure constants Sct,c=Sct,z=0.5 and Cd,c=Cd,z=3.0 were selected based on results obtained with the standard k–omega model (stated in §5.6), and the inlet velocity profile is a power-law fit to the DNS-averaged data (Fig. 2, §4). The conclusions explicitly acknowledge that optimal constants depend on the turbulence model and that error cancellation “cannot be generalized.” This does not invalidate the model, but it means the favorable agreement could partly arise from calibrated inputs. I request either (a) a blind cross-case test with fixed constants, or (b) a clear reframing of the abstract/conclusions as a calibrated demonstration with quantified uncertainty.
  2. [§5.4] The sensitivity analysis shows that the best Sct,c is case-dependent: approximately 0.6 for Re=5500 and 0.4 for Re=11000 (Figs. 12–13). The adopted value of 0.5 therefore lies between two case-specific optima rather than representing a single a priori constant. Please report the sensitivity of key metrics (flame length, peak temperature, integrated heat release, equivalence-ratio branch) to Sct,c for both cases in a quantitative table, and discuss whether any single constant can be expected to hold outside the fitted range.
  3. [§4] The RANS inlet boundary condition is a power-law profile fitted to the DNS-averaged data (Fig. 2). This removes part of the mean-flow error before the combustion model is tested, so the downstream agreement does not independently validate the RANS momentum closure. I recommend a sensitivity check to the inlet profile (e.g., top-hat or a fully developed profile) and, if feasible, a cold-flow-only comparison that quantifies how much of the reacting-case agreement depends on this boundary condition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2, Figs. 5–6] Please specify how the DNS Favre-averaged fields are obtained (time window, number of samples, spanwise averaging) and state whether statistical convergence was assessed.
  2. [§2.1, Eqs. (7)–(11)] The molecular diffusion coefficients are Favre-averaged from the table (e.g., eΓYc,Yc) while fluctuations of Γ and their correlation with scalar gradients are neglected. This should be stated explicitly as a closure assumption.
  3. [§3] The Reynolds number is defined with H, which changes between cases (4 mm and 8 mm). Please state these values directly in the text and define the bulk velocity for both cases.
  4. [Fig. 2] The power-law fit is not described quantitatively. Report the exponent and, if possible, a goodness-of-fit measure so readers can reproduce the inlet profile.
  5. [Figs. 7–10, 13–15, 17–18, A.20] Several figures contain stray “ok” annotations or labels (for example, “Re5500ok” in Fig. 7). These should be removed or replaced with meaningful annotations before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: TC-PD equations are independently derived; the quantitative RANS agreement is partly calibrated but not constructed.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the constructional sense. The central TC-PD transport equations (4)-(5) are obtained by linearly combining species mass-conservation equations under the flamelet manifold hypothesis, with diffusion coefficients Gamma stored from the flamelet database; the RANS equations then solve these same transport equations with additional unclosed turbulent-transport terms. The 1D laminar check in Section 5.1 against Cantera detailed chemistry is parameter-free and tests the table and transport-level diffusion before the RANS closure is introduced. The main caveats are validation-strength limitations, not definitional circularity: the RANS constants Sct,c=Sct,z=0.5 and Cd,c=Cd,z=3.0 were chosen after inspecting comparisons with the DNS, as stated in Section 5.6 ('the values of the model constants Sct and Cd were selected based on the results obtained with the standard kappa-omega model'); the same section's sensitivity study shows the best Sct differs between Reynolds numbers (approx. 0.6 for Re=5500 and approx. 0.4 for Re=11000, Section 5.4); and the conclusions concede that 'optimum values of these constants are linked to the accuracy of the turbulence model' and that error cancellation 'cannot be generalized'. The DNS-fitted inlet velocity profile (Figure 2, Section 4) also makes the downstream comparison non-blind. These are honest limitations and reduce the strength of the abstract's claim that the RANS model 'correctly reproduce[s]' the DNS, but they do not make an output equation equal to an input or present a fitted quantity as a derived prediction. The self-citations ([13], [18], [24]) are prior work by overlapping authors, but [13] serves as a derivation source rather than an imported uniqueness theorem forbidding alternatives. Accordingly, the central TC-PD derivation remains independent; score 2 reflects the minor non-blind/calibration elements and overlapping citations rather than circular construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The RANS predictions inherit the flamelet-manifold assumption, the β-PDF independence assumption, and standard gradient-diffusion/Boussinesq closures; quantitative agreement additionally depends on Sct and Cd constants and on a DNS-fitted inlet profile.

free parameters (3)
  • Turbulent Schmidt numbers Sct,c, Sct,z = 0.5 (both)
    Chosen within literature range 0.4–0.9; sensitivity study (§5.4) shows best value depends on Reynolds number (≈0.6 for Re 5500, ≈0.4 for Re 11000), so the chosen value is a compromise and was not derived a priori.
  • Scalar dissipation constants Cd,c, Cd,z = 3.0 (both)
    Literature recommends 0.25–2 [30]; the authors use 3.0 and test 1–5 (§5.5). §5.6 states model constants were selected based on results with the standard κ–ω model, coupling to the reference data.
  • DNS-fitted power-law inlet velocity profile coefficients = not reported (fit to DNS-averaged profile, Fig. 2)
    The RANS central jet boundary condition is a power-law fit to the DNS-averaged velocity profile, importing reference data into the simulation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Flamelet hypothesis: all thermochemical states lie on a 2D manifold parametrized by progress variable Yc and Bilger mixture fraction Z; the turbulent manifold is formed by β-PDF integration of the laminar manifold.
    Invoked throughout §2; the whole table-based approach depends on this reduction. The paper excludes heat losses to maintain the 2D manifold.
  • domain assumption Statistical independence of progress variable and mixture fraction fluctuations in the presumed PDF (P = Pc·PZ, Eq. 9).
    Stated in §2.1; the authors themselves note it 'may not be entirely valid in the presence of thermo-diffusive instabilities'.
  • domain assumption Gradient diffusion hypothesis for turbulent scalar fluxes and Boussinesq hypothesis for Reynolds stresses, plus the specific turbulence model equations.
    Used to close Eqs (7)-(11) and the momentum equations in §2.1 and §4; the sensitivity analysis shows results are sensitive to this closure (κ–ϵ fails).
  • domain assumption The Burke et al. H2/O2 mechanism and the transport models used in the flamelet generation (mixture-averaged + Soret) describe the physics; the DNS uses constant non-unity Lewis numbers within the same mechanism.
    Flamelets and DNS use the same chemistry but different transport treatments (§3); transport inconsistencies are not resolved a priori.
  • domain assumption 2D RANS domain faithfully represents a flame with intrinsically 3D thermo-diffusive instabilities, by appeal to spanwise periodicity in the DNS.
    §4 states the spanwise direction is periodic, so 2D is selected; unresolved 3D flame surface dynamics are thereby excluded from the model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20044 in / 13414 out tokens · 118409 ms · 2026-08-01T13:47:23.215911+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Lean hydrogen flames are prone to thermo-diffusive instabilities due to preferential and differential diffusion effects, posing significant challenges for their modeling in computational fluid dynamics simulations. This work extends a tabulated-chemistry (TC) model that includes preferential and differential diffusion effects to a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) framework and assesses its performance for a lean premixed $\mathrm{H_2}$-air slot burner at two Reynolds numbers ($\mathrm{Re}=5500$ and $11000$) using direct numerical simulation (DNS) as a reference. The approach is based on transport equations for the progress variable and mixture fraction derived from the species mass transport equations considering mixture-averaged diffusion and Soret effect, and incorporates turbulence--chemistry interaction via a presumed probability density function (PDF) approach. RANS simulations including preferential-differential diffusion are able to correctly reproduce the DNS flame length, heat-release distribution, and the characteristic equivalence-ratio and super-adiabatic temperature branches of the slot flame. Comparisons with (i) a unity-Lewis-number variant and (ii) a model including thermo-diffusive effects only in the flamelet table show the impact of preferential and differential diffusion on the TC model at both the thermochemical and transport levels. Finally, the impact of the turbulence closures for turbulent diffusion, scalar dissipation rate, and Reynolds stresses is assessed. The results presented in this paper demonstrate the capability of the model to include preferential and differential diffusion effects in cost-effective RANS simulations of lean hydrogen flames.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18993 by Alex M. Garcia, Christian Wuppermann, Daniel Mira, Eduardo J. P\'erez-S\'anchez, Emiliano M. Fortes, Heinz Pitsch, Marco Vivenzo, Michael Gauding, Nico Schmitz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Instantaneous fields of temperature, equivalence ratio, and heat release rate from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Central jet inlet velocity profile. 5. Results To analyze the tabulated chemistry model with preferential and differential diffusion (TC PD) in the RANS simulations, two additional model versions are considered. The first version assumes unity Lewis number (TC Le1), implying that neither preferential nor differential diffusion is included in the flamelet tabulation. Consequently, the diffusion coefficients… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Variation of unstretched laminar flame speed and thermal flame thickness with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mixture fraction and transport budget of progress variable for the unstretched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Favre-averaged DNS and RANS contours of heat release rate, temperature, and equiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Favre-averaged DNS and RANS contours of heat release rate, temperature, and equiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contours of the RANS scalar transport budget for the hydrogen-air slot flame at Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mixture fraction and transport budget of the progress variable for the slot flame with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Integral of the progress variable source term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Contours of equivalence ratio and heat release rate from the RANS simulations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Progress variable source term for the tables with PD (left column) and Le1 (right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Profiles of heat release rate, temperature, equivalence ratio, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Profiles of temperature (at x/H = 0.0) and streamwise distribution of the integrated heat release rate for the hydrogen-air slot flame with (a) Re = 5500 and (b) Re = 11000. Favre￾averaged DNS and RANS with varying Sct with the DNS data for the slot flame is not the same for the two Reynolds numbers evaluated, where higher values, around 0.6, are in better agreement for the Re = 5500 case and lower values… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Profiles of heat release rate, temperature, equivalence ratio, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Profiles of temperature (x/H = 0.0) and streamwise distribution of the integrated heat release rate for the hydrogen-air slot flame with (a) Re = 5500 and (b) Re = 11000. Favre￾averaged DNS and RANS with varying Cd,c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Contours of heat release rate, temperature, and equivalence ratio for the hydrogen-air [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Profiles of heat release rate, temperature, equivalence ratio, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Profiles of temperature (x/H = 0.0) and streamwise distribution of the integrated heat release rate for the hydrogen-air slot flame with (a) Re = 5500 and (b) Re = 11000. Favre￾averaged DNS and RANS with different turbulence models. 6. Conclusions This work assessed a tabulated-chemistry model including preferential and dif￾ferential diffusion (TC PD) within a RANS framework for a lean H2–air slot jet at … view at source ↗

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

52 extracted references

  1. [1]

    W. Song, H. P. Francisco E, Hong, G. Im., Hydrogen for Future Thermal Engines, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Matalon, Intrinsic flame instabilities in premixed and nonpremixed com- bustion, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 39 (2007) 163–191

    M. Matalon, Intrinsic flame instabilities in premixed and nonpremixed com- bustion, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 39 (2007) 163–191

    2007

  3. [3]

    H. Pitsch, The transition to sustainable combustion: Hydrogen- and carbon- based future fuels and methods for dealing with their challenges, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 40 (2024) 105638. 35

    2024

  4. [4]

    J. A. van Oijen, A. Donini, R. Bastiaans, J. ten Thije Boonkkamp, L. de Goey, State-of-the-art in premixed combustion modeling using flamelet generated manifolds, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 57 (2016) 30–74

    2016

  5. [5]

    Gicquel, N

    O. Gicquel, N. Darabiha, D. Th´ evenin, Liminar premixed hydrogen/air coun- terflow flame simulations using flame prolongation of ildm with differential diffusion, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 28 (2000) 1901–1908

    2000

  6. [6]

    Knudsen, H

    E. Knudsen, H. Pitsch, A general flamelet transformation useful for distin- guishing between premixed and non-premixed modes of combustion, Com- bustion and Flame 156 (2009) 678–696

    2009

  7. [7]

    J. A. M. de Swart, R. J. M. Bastiaans, J. A. van Oijen, L. P. H. de Goey, R. S. Cant, Inclusion of preferential diffusion in simulations of premixed combustion of hydrogen/methane mixtures with flamelet generated manifolds, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 85 (2010) 473–511

    2010

  8. [8]

    Donini, R

    A. Donini, R. Bastiaans, J. A. van Oijen, L. de Goey, Differential diffusion effects inclusion with flamelet generated manifold for the modeling of stratified premixed cooled flames, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35 (2015) 831–837

    2015

  9. [9]

    J. D. Regele, E. Knudsen, H. Pitsch, G. Blanquart, A two-equation model for non-unity lewis number differential diffusion in lean premixed laminar flames, Combustion and Flame 160 (2013) 240–250

    2013

  10. [10]

    Mukundakumar, D

    N. Mukundakumar, D. Efimov, N. Beishuizen, J. van Oijen, A new preferential diffusion model applied to fgm simulations of hydrogen flames, Combustion Theory and Modelling 25 (2021) 1245–1267

    2021

  11. [11]

    B¨ ottler, X

    H. B¨ ottler, X. Chen, S. Xie, A. Scholtissek, Z. Chen, C. Hasse, Flamelet modeling of forced ignition and flame propagation in hydrogen-air mixtures, Combustion and Flame 243 (2022) 112125

    2022

  12. [12]

    B¨ ottler, H

    H. B¨ ottler, H. Lulic, M. Steinhausen, X. Wen, C. Hasse, A. Scholtissek, Flamelet modeling of thermo-diffusively unstable hydrogen-air flames, Pro- ceedings of the Combustion Institute 39 (2023) 1567–1576

    2023

  13. [13]

    E. J. P´ erez-S´ anchez, E. M. Fortes, D. Mira, Assessment of the flamelet gen- erated manifold method with preferential diffusion modeling for partially pre- mixed hydrogen flames, Combustion and Flame 277 (2025) 114141

    2025

  14. [14]

    A. W. Vreman, J. A. van Oijen, L. de Goey, R. Bastiaans, Direct numerical simulation of hydrogen addition in turbulent premixed bunsen flames using 36 flamelet-generated manifold reduction, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009) 2778–2788

    2009

  15. [15]

    Schlup, G

    J. Schlup, G. Blanquart, Reproducing curvature effects due to differential dif- fusion in tabulated chemistry for premixed flames, Proceedings of the Com- bustion Institute 37 (2019) 2511–2518

    2019

  16. [16]

    X. Wen, T. Zirwes, A. Scholtissek, H. B¨ ottler, F. Zhang, H. Bockhorn, C. Hasse, Flame structure analysis and composition space modeling of ther- modiffusively unstable premixed hydrogen flames — part i: Atmospheric pres- sure, Combustion and Flame 238 (2022) 111815

    2022

  17. [17]

    X. Wen, T. Zirwes, A. Scholtissek, H. B¨ ottler, F. Zhang, H. Bockhorn, C. Hasse, Flame structure analysis and composition space modeling of ther- modiffusively unstable premixed hydrogen flames — part ii: Elevated pres- sure, Combustion and Flame 238 (2022) 111808

    2022

  18. [18]

    E. M. Fortes, E. J. P´ erez-S´ anchez, A. Both, T. Grenga, D. Mira, Analysis of thermodiffusive instabilities in hydrogen/air premixed flames using a tab- ulated flamelet model, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 137 (2025) 247–259

    2025

  19. [19]

    Donini, R

    A. Donini, R. M. Bastiaans, J. A. van Oijen, L. P. H de Goey, A 5-d imple- mentation of fgm for the large eddy simulation of a stratified swirled flame with heat loss in a gas turbine combustor, Flow, turbulence and combustion 98 (2017) 887–922

    2017

  20. [20]

    Zhang, S

    W. Zhang, S. Karaca, J. Wang, Z. Huang, J. van Oijen, Large eddy simulation of the cambridge/sandia stratified flame with flamelet-generated manifolds: Effects of non-unity lewis numbers and stretch, Combustion and Flame 227 (2021) 106–119

    2021

  21. [21]

    Nicolai, L

    H. Nicolai, L. Dressler, J. Janicka, C. Hasse, Assessing the importance of differential diffusion in stratified hydrogen–methane flames using extended flamelet tabulation approaches, Physics of Fluids 34 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    R. Kai, T. Tokuoka, J. Nagao, A. L. Pillai, R. Kurose, Les flamelet modeling of hydrogen combustion considering preferential diffusion effect, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 48 (2023) 11086–11101

    2023

  23. [23]

    Ballatore, L

    A. Ballatore, L. Somers, J. A. van Oijen, Large-eddy simulation of high- pressure direct injections of hydrogen with tabulated chemistry, Fuel 393 (2025) 134933. 37

    2025

  24. [24]

    E. M. Fortes, E. J. Perez-Sanchez, T. Grenga, M. Gauding, H. Pitsch, Large- eddy simulations of a lean hydrogen premixed turbulent jet flame with tabu- lated chemistry, 13th Mediterranean Combustion Symposium, Corfu, Greece (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Berger, A

    L. Berger, A. Attili, M. Gauding, H. Pitsch, Les combustion model for pre- mixed turbulent hydrogen flames with thermodiffusive instabilities: a priori and a posteriori analysis, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1003 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Ferrante, G

    G. Ferrante, G. Eitelberg, I. Langella, Differential diffusion modelling for les of premixed and partially premixed flames with presumed fdf, Combustion Theory and Modelling 28 (2024) 695–730

    2024

  27. [27]

    Berger, A

    L. Berger, A. Attili, H. Pitsch, Synergistic interactions of thermodiffusive instabilities and turbulence in lean hydrogen flames, Combustion and Flame 244 (2022) 112254

    2022

  28. [28]

    X. Liu, W. Shao, C. Liu, X. Bi, Y. Liu, Y. Xiao, Numerical study of a high-hydrogen micromix model burner using flamelet-generated manifold, In- ternational Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021) 20750–20764

    2021

  29. [29]

    F. S. Almutairi, K. R. Dinesh, J. A. van Oijen, Modelling of hydrogen-blended dual-fuel combustion using flamelet-generated manifold and preferential diffu- sion effects, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 48 (2023) 1602–1624

    2023

  30. [30]

    Poinsot, D

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

    2005

  31. [31]

    Berger, A

    L. Berger, A. Attili, M. Gauding, H. Pitsch, Effects of karlovitz number vari- ations on thermodiffusive instabilities in lean turbulent hydrogen jet flames, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 40 (2024) 105219

    2024

  32. [32]

    M. P. Burke, M. Chaos, Y. Ju, F. L. Dryer, S. J. Klippenstein, Comprehensive h2/o2 kinetic model for high–pressure combustion, International Journal of Chemical Kinetics 44 (2012) 444–474

    2012

  33. [33]

    S. H. Chung, C. K. Law, An integral analysis of the structure and propagation of stretched premixed flames, Combustion and Flame 72 (1988) 325–336

    1988

  34. [34]

    C. K. Law, Dynamics of stretched flames, Symposium (International) on Combustion 22 (1989) 1381–1402

    1989

  35. [35]

    Altantzis, C

    C. Altantzis, C. E. Frouzakis, A. G. Tomboulides, M. Matalon, K. Boulou- chos, Hydrodynamic and thermodiffusive instability effects on the evolution 38 of laminar planar lean premixed hydrogen flames, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 700 (2012) 329–361

    2012

  36. [36]

    J. B. Chen, H. G. Im, Stretch effects on the burning velocity of turbulent premixed hydrogen/air flames, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 28 (2000) 211–218

    2000

  37. [37]

    S. V. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, CRC Press, 2018

    2018

  38. [38]

    D. C. Wilcox, Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models, AIAA Journal 26 (1988) 1299–1310

    1988

  39. [39]

    ANSYS, Inc., ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide: Release 2023 R1, ANSYS Fluent Documentation, ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2023

    2023

  40. [40]

    D. G. Goodwin, R. L. Speth, H. K. Moffat, B. W. Weber, Cantera: An object-oriented software toolkit for chemical kinetics, thermodynamics, and transport processes, 2021

    2021

  41. [41]

    A. J. Aspden, M. S. Day, J. B. Bell, Turbulence–flame interactions in lean premixed hydrogen: transition to the distributed burning regime, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 680 (2011) 287–320

    2011

  42. [42]

    Porcarelli, I

    A. Porcarelli, I. Langella, Mitigation of preferential diffusion effects by inten- sive strain in lean premixed hydrogen flamelets, Proceedings of the Combus- tion Institute 40 (2024) 105728

    2024

  43. [43]

    S. N. J. Schepers, J. A. van Oijen, Fgm modeling of thermo-diffusive unstable lean premixed hydrogen-air flames, Combustion and Flame 280 (2025) 114332

    2025

  44. [44]

    Tominaga, T

    Y. Tominaga, T. Stathopoulos, Turbulent schmidt numbers for cfd analysis with various types of flowfield, Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 8091– 8099

    2007

  45. [45]

    Jiang, I

    L.-Y. Jiang, I. Campbell, Prandtl/schmidt number effect on temperature distribution in a generic combustor, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 48 (2009) 322–330

    2009

  46. [46]

    Z. Shi, J. Chen, Q. Chen, On the turbulence models and turbulent schmidt number in simulating stratified flows, Journal of Building Performance Sim- ulation 9 (2016) 134–148

    2016

  47. [47]

    Poschner, M

    M. Poschner, M. Pfitzner, Real gas cfd simulation of supercritical h2-lox in the mascotte single injector combustor using a commercial cfd code, in: 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virigina, 2008. 39

    2008

  48. [48]

    Akbari, S

    A. Akbari, S. Hill, V. McDonell, S. Samuelsen, Experimental and computa- tional analyses of methane and hydrogen mixing in a model premixer, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 133 (2011)

    2011

  49. [49]

    L´ opez-Ju´ arez, X

    M. L´ opez-Ju´ arez, X. Sun, B. Sethi, P. Gauthier, D. Abbott, Characterising hydrogen micromix flames: Combustion model calibration and evaluation, in: Volume 3: Ceramics; Coal, Biomass, Hydrogen, and Alternative Fuels, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2020

    2020

  50. [50]

    T.-H. Shih, W. W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, J. Zhu, A new k-ϵeddy viscosity model for high reynolds number turbulent flows, Computers & Fluids 24 (1995) 227–238

    1995

  51. [51]

    F. R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA Journal 32 (1994) 1598–1605

    1994

  52. [52]

    D. C. Wilcox, Turbulence modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, California, 3rd ed. edition, 1998. 40

    1998