Nozzle Flow Simulation by Small Disturbance Approximation and Euler Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The nozzle is a kind of equipment with a wide range of usage in the aerospace industry, of which its performance is vital for rocket engines by changing the geometry of the inner wall of the pipe section to accelerate the airflow. There are two types of nozzles commonly used: one is a tapered nozzle, and the other is a Laval nozzle. To analyze the flow phenomenon in nozzle is vital before transferring prototype design into industrial production, whether by laboratory experiment or computational simulation. In this paper, two different numerical methods are adopted to simulate gas behavior inside a simplified nozzle with upper and bottom symmetrical bumps. The first is to solve one dimensional Euler equations, and the other is to solve a scalar variable named velocity potential with small disturbance equations (SDE). The solutions under various inlet Mach numbers are compared by analysing the velocity fields and Mach number contours obtained by these two approaches. Similarities and differences between the Euler method and the potential SDE method for subsonic flow and supersonic flow are the key emphases in this work. For either subsonic or supersonic flow, the Mach number distribution along the nozzle’s center line shows a consistent trend for both methods. In contrast, the values of maximum or minimum Mach number have corresponding differences. Moreover, by using potential SDE simulation, several types of shock waves are successfully captured. All results show that the incoming airflow decelerates at the leading edge of the nozzle then accelerates when passing through the bumps, and finally decelerates back to the speed of inlet flow. The difference is that flows with varied Mach numbers has distinct velocity distributions in the nozzle.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".