Linear Burning Rate and Erosivity Properties of Nitrocellulose Propellant Formulations Plasticized by Glycidyl Azide Polymer and Nitroglycerine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The performance of the extruded cord geometry of nitrocellulose (NC) propellants plasticized by glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) and nitroglycerine (NG) has been evaluated using both closed and erosion vented vessel techniques in order to obtain the linear burning rate and the relative erosivity of these propellants. The closed vessel experiments performed at −46, 21 and 63 °C demonstrate that the measured maximum pressure is in accordance with the calculation obtained using the CHEETAH V2 thermochemical code. From the closed vessel analysis, the linear burning rates show that it is on average 89±3 % that of the 21 °C propellant when fired at −46 °C. and 112±4 % when fired at 63 °C. The addition of either GAP or NG increases the linear burning rate when compared to the neat NC formulation. Relative erosion data obtained in the erosion vented vessel are in agreement with the Arisawa‐Kimura models and it is found that the ratio of CO/CO 2 concentration in combustion gases is a better erosivity indicator than N 2 /CO ratio.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".