Numerical Study of Blast Initiation of Detonation Using a Two Step Chemical Kinetics Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of chemical reactions on the blast initiation of detonation in gaseous media has been investigated in this paper. Analytical method is based on the numerical solution of onedimensional reactive Euler equations. So far, analyses on the blast initiation of detonation have modeled the combustion process as a one-step chemical reaction, which follows the Arrhenius rate law. Previous studies indicate that one-step model cannot predict single critical initiation energy. These results contradict with the experimental observation that a distinct value of critical initiation energy exists, below which no detonation occurs. Two-step chemical kinetics has been utilized in the present investigation. In two-step kinetics, first step is an induction step, while the chemical energy is released in second step via Arrhenius mechanism. With variation of activation energy in these two steps, the effect of induction length and energy release can be studied. This model predicts three regimes of blast initiation of detonation that have been observed in experimental observation. On the other hand, like one-step model, the present model cannot predict a limit for the initiation energy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".