MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of Thermal Protection Systems Utilizing Sandwich Structures with Low Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Lattice Hot Faces

2011· article· en· W2147255001 on OpenAlexaff
Craig A. Steeves, A.G. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal expansionThermalHypersonic speedSpace Shuttle thermal protection systemThermal protectionMaterials scienceAerospace engineeringLattice (music)Nuclear engineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringMechanicsComposite materialEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atmospheric cruise hypersonic vehicles are subject to high viscous heating over large surface areas. Acreage thermal protection systems (TPSs) must be stiff, strong, and light while withstanding large thermal gradients and protecting the cool interior of the vehicle. It is a challenge to design thermal protection to minimize the thermal stresses caused by thermal expansion mismatch. This paper uses a recent concept for low‐thermal‐expansion periodic lattices to propose a sandwich configuration for acreage TPSs. A key aspect of these concepts is that they can be attached to coll structures without inducing thermal stresses during heating. Sandwich TPSs are analyzed and optimized for minimum mass for required performance characteristics, and compared with an optimized baseline system. For performance requirements relevant to atmospheric hypersonic flight, the sandwich TPSs using low‐thermal‐expansion periodic lattices are superior to the baseline system for a large range of operating conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Ceramic SocietySame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207