Transient Chamber Flowfield Simulation of a Rod-and-Tube Configuration Solid Rocket Motor
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
A transient CFD simulation of the flowfield within a rod-and-tube solid propellant rocket motor has been developed. This model couples the fluid dynamics and heat transfer of the gas flowfield within the rocket port to the nozzle to predict the internal environment within the motor including the regression rate of the propellant. The propellant regression is described with an empirical erosive burning model based on the phenomenological heat transfer approach derived by Lenoir and Robillard 1 . The predicted propellant burn rate and consequently the chamber pressure were found to be significantly increased from the case where propellant regression was described by the simple burning law only. This augmentation of the burn rate, particularly during the early stages of the simulation, was in agreement with the trends observed in small diameter rockets where erosive burning was present. A validation of the model comparing an actual Pressure - Time plot to that predicted by the CFD model was also carried out and achieved a very high degree of correlation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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