Propulsive Performance of Hypersonic Oblique Detonation Wave and Shock-Induced Combustion Ramjets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative study is presented of the propulsive characteristics of hypersonic detonation wave and shockinduced combustion ramjets. The same ramjet design methodology is used to assess the propulsive performance of both types of ramjets. The lower ‐upper symmetric Gauss ‐Seidel scheme combined with a symmetric shockcapturing total variation diminishing scheme are used to solve the Euler equations describing thetwo-dimensional hydrogen/air combustible e owe eld with nonequilibrium chemical reactions including 13 species (H2, O2, H, O, OH, H2O, HO2, H2O2, N, NO, HNO, N 2, and NO2). Results obtained for e ight Mach numbers 12< ‐ M1 < ‐ 16 and for a e ight dynamic pressure of 67,032 Pa (1400 psf) show that combustor entrance temperatures Tce (or inlet compression ratios ) substantially lower than the near ignition values of hydrogen/air mixture, adopted for the generation of a near Chapman ‐Jouguet oblique detonation wave in the combustor, entail signie cant performance augmentation. For the considered range of e ight Mach numbers and value of e ight dynamic pressure, the thrust of a shock-induced combustion ramjet is maximum for 650 <‐ Tce < ‐ 700 K, and at this point the combustion is entirely shock induced. The thrust generation can be enhanced by more than 10% and the fuel specie c impulses improved by more than one-third over their magnitudes corresponding to maximum thrust detonation wave ramjets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".