MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748128571 · doi:10.11159/ffhmt17.110

Computational Analysis of Bell Nozzles

2017· article· en· W2748128571 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Beena D. Baloni, Sonu P. Kumar, S. A. Channiwala

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Bell type nozzle is most commonly used shape for rocket nozzles. This type of nozzle not only offers significant advantages in terms of size and performance over the conical nozzle but also reduces complexity compared to annular nozzles. The nozzle uses the stagnation temperature (To) and stagnation pressure (Po) generated in the combustion chamber to create thrust by accelerating the combustion gases to a high supersonic velocity. The nozzle expansion ratio was governed by the exit velocity. During flight, the jet flow is ideally expanded and adapted to the surrounding flow only during a short period. The rest of the time, the rocket engine operates in off-design conditions. The present work incorporates 2D axisymmetric flow analysis within the bell type nozzle, at design and off-design conditions, by using computational fluid dynamic software GAMBIT 2.4.6 and FLUENT 6.3.26. A computer code, with the use of the method of characteristics and stream function, is developed to define the higher efficiency nozzle contours for analysis. Simulation has been carried out separately for two different flow conditions i.e. cold and hot. Shear Stress Transport k- turbulence model has been chosen for flow analysis. The converged solutions captured asymmetric lambda shock in the nozzles at higher nozzle pressure ratios (NPR) for viscous flows. It also predicted aftershock and flow separation depending upon NPR. The strength of the normal shock, at Mach stem in viscous prediction, generally increases with an increase in NPR. Good agreement is observed between predicted simulation and analytical results in terms of shock structure, shock location, the size of normal shock, aftershock, and asymmetric lambda shocks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass TransferSame topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207