MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998425022 · doi:10.2514/1.j058580

Effect of Injection Mach Number on Penetration in a Supersonic Crossflow

2019· article· en· W2998425022 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guangxin Li, Mingbo Sun, Jiangfei Yu, Changhai Liang, Yuan Liu, Guoyan Zhao, Yuhui Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMach numberSupersonic speedMechanicsPenetration (warfare)Mach waveBody orificeShock diamondPhysicsShock (circulatory)WakeStagnation pointMaterials scienceMathematicsEngineeringHeat transferMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a transverse gaseous jet in supersonic crossflows, the empirical formula implies that the jet penetration height will monotonically increase with the injection Mach number under a certain crossflow condition. However, due to the high backpressure outside the jet orifice, the penetration height will not go to infinity with further increasing the injection Mach number. In this paper, theoretical derivations and numerical simulations were carried out to investigate the effect of injection Mach number on the jet penetration characteristics of a supersonic jet in an 2.95 crossflow. By proposing an approximation that the backpressure outside the orifice is equal to the pressure of the air inflow passing a normal shock, it is predicted that the jet penetration height reaches its maximum at the Mach number when no shock appears in the Laval nozzle under this backpressure. Furthermore, the distribution characteristics of injectant, the shock structures, and near-wall wake region features were obtained and analyzed. The simulation results show that changing the injection Mach number would significantly influence the structures of shocks and the near-wall wake features, which impacts the spatial distribution of injectant. Similar to the jet penetration height, there also exists a turning point in the variation trend of most structures, rather than monotonously changing with the injection Mach number. For the given condition, the quantitative analysis indicates that the penetration height approximately reaches its peak at injection Mach number , which is consistent with the theoretical assumptions.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207