MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084255703 · doi:10.2514/1.9252

Hypervelocity Fuel/Air Mixing in a Shcramjet Inlet

2004· article· en· W2084255703 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Propulsion and Power · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypervelocityInletRamjetMixing (physics)Materials scienceAerospace engineeringMechanicsEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysicsCombustorCombustionMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mixing of fuel with air in the inlet of a shock-induced combustion ramjet (shcramjet) is presented. The study is limited to nonreacting hydrogen/air mixing in an external-compression inlet at a flight Mach number of 11 and at a dynamic pressure of 1400 psf (67,032 Pa), with use of an array of cantilevered ramp injectors. Results are obtained using the WARP code solving the Favre-averaged Navier‐Stokes equations closed by the Wilcox kω turbulence model and the Wilcox dilatational dissipation correction, discretized by the Yee‐Roe flux-limited scheme. Because of the fuel being injected at a very high speed, fuel injection in the inlet is found to increase the thrust potential considerably, with a gain exceeding the losses by 40‐120%. Losses due to skin friction are seen to play a significant role in the inlet, because they are estimated to make up as much as 50‐70% of the thrust potential losses. The use of a turbulence model that can predict the wall shear stress accurately is, hence, crucial in assessing the losses accurately in a shcramjet inlet. Substituting the second inlet shock by a Prandtl‐Meyer compression fan is encouraged because it decreases the thrust potential losses and reduces the risk of premature ignition by reducing the static temperature, while decreasing the mixing efficiency by a mere 6%. One approach that is observed to be successful at increasing the mixing efficiency in the inlet is alternating the injection angle along the injector array. The use of two injection angles of 9 and 16 deg is seen to result in a 32% increase in the mixing efficiency at the expense of a 14% increase in the losses when compared to a single injection angle of 10 deg. When alternating injection angles are used, the mixing efficiency reaches as much as 0.47 at the inlet exit.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.202 · 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