MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048200980 · doi:10.2514/1.43599

Numerical Study of Supersonic Combustion Processes with Central Strut Injection

2010· article· en· W2048200980 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Propulsion and Power · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSupersonic speedCombustionMaterials scienceAerospace engineeringScramjetMechanicsEngineeringCombustorPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combustion chamber is shown in Fig. 1. It has a rectangular cross section with width w 40 mm and constant isolator height h 35:4 mm. Downstream distance, x, is measured from the Laval nozzle throat where x 0. Air enters the chamber from the left at a Mach number of M 2:1 at isolator entry. The combustor and diverging sections open at angles 1 1 and 2 2 , respectively. The outflow static pressure is p1 0:96 bar. The facility operates continuously at stagnation conditions T0;air 1400 K and p0;air 4 bar. For brevity, in the following, wall pressures in the symmetry plane are only shown for the upper wall. Our injector is shown in Fig. 1b. Chun et al. [1] provide further details about the facility and Gerlinger et al. [2,3] provide further details on the injector. Because of exploitation of symmetry, only half the channel width is modeled. H2 is injected through the horizontal slots (see Fig. 1b). At design conditions, the injection Mach number is MH2 2:6. However, in practice, this is probably not achieved, due to geometric deformation. As a conservative estimate we chose MH2 1:0. The validity of this choice is checked in Sec. V.E. Four combustion modes, i.e., blowoff, weak combustion, strong combustion, and thermal choking were observed. Because of flow overexpansion, all modes feature a shock train in proximity of the channel outflow. Another shock train develops in the isolator, due to injector displacement effects. In flight, strong combustion is desired. Here, the injector acts as the flame holder and heat release is high. For weak combustion the fuel–air mixture is ignited in the outflow shock train. The flame is detached from the injector and heat release is significantly lower. If, in these conditions, the exit pressure is lowered sufficiently, the outflow shock train disappears, and combustion ceases (blowoff). For excessive fuel injection, the flow becomes thermally choked. The combustion mode is determined by the geometry, stagnation conditions, ambient pressure, and the global equivalence ratio (see also Scheuermann et al. [4]).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it