Validation of the Wilcox k-omega Model for Flows Characteristic to Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerical results obtained with the WARP code solving the 1988 Wilcox k‐ω two-equation model are compared with experimental data of flowfields characteristic of hypersonic airbreathing propulsion. The problems chosen for the comparison include a shock/boundary-layer interaction case, a reacting and inert planar mixing case, and two ramp injector mixing cases. In addition, a comparison is performed with empirical correlations on the basis of skin friction for flow over a flat plate and shear layer growth for a free shear layer. The agreement between the numerical and experimental results varies between being reasonable and excellent, with a discrepancy generally not exceeding 20%. It is found that the grid-induced error can be reduced to an acceptable level for most problems with a reasonable mesh size. However, the free shear layer and the shock/boundary-layer interaction cases require a considerably finer mesh. The Wilcox dilatational dissipation correction is seen to be beneficial in predicting the growth of a free shear layer at a high convective Mach number, but its use is considered either questionable or detrimental for the other cases. A proper choice of the turbulent Schmidt number is observed to be crucial in predicting the injectant mole fraction contours for one of the ramp injector cases, with the best agreement obtained with Schmidt number Sct fixed to 0.25. For the inert planar mixing case, overall better agreement is obtained when setting both the turbulent Prandtl and Schmidt number to 0.5.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it