MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529511581 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2017.145

Influence of turbulent fluctuations on detonation propagation

2017· preprint· en· W2529511581 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Maxwell, Rohit R. Bhattacharjee, Sebastien S. M. Lau-Chapdelaine, S. A. E. G. Falle, G. J. Sharpe, Matei I. Radulescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceLaminar flowMechanicsLarge eddy simulationPhysicsShock waveTurbulence kinetic energyInstabilityEnstrophyDetonationShock (circulatory)Direct numerical simulationClassical mechanicsChemistryVortexVorticity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study addresses the reaction zone structure and burning mechanism of unstable detonations. Experiments investigated mainly two-dimensional methane–oxygen cellular detonations in a thin channel geometry. The sufficiently high temporal resolution permitted the determination of the probability density function of the shock distribution, a power law with an exponent of $-3$ , and the burning rate of unreacted pockets from their edges – through surface turbulent flames with a speed approximately 3–7 times larger than the laminar one at the local conditions. Numerical simulations were performed using a novel large-eddy simulation method where the reactions due to both autoignition and turbulent transport were treated exactly at the subgrid scale in a reaction–diffusion formulation. The model is an extension of Kerstein and Menon’s linear eddy model for large-eddy simulation to treat flows with shock waves and rapid gas-dynamic transients. The two-dimensional simulations recovered well the amplification of the laminar flame speed due to the turbulence generated mainly by the shear layers originating from the triple points and subsequent Richtmyer–Meshkov instability associated with the internal pressure waves. The simulations clarified how the level of turbulence generated controlled the burning rate of the pockets, the hydrodynamic thickness of the wave, the cellular structure and its distribution. Three-dimensional simulations were found to be in general good agreement with the two-dimensional ones, in that the subgrid-scale model captured the ensuing turbulent burning once the scales associated with the cellular dynamics, where turbulent kinetic energy is injected, are well resolved.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207