MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317584219 · doi:10.2514/6.2023-1228

Validation and Verification of reactingPimpleCentralFOAM for Ejector Ramjet Applications

2023· article· en· W4317584219 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaminar flowMechanicsComputational fluid dynamicsTurbulenceCombustionCombustorFlame speedRamjetLaminar flame speedJet (fluid)Mixing (physics)Aerospace engineeringMaterials scienceSimulationPremixed flameChemistryComputer sciencePhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-1228.vid A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) validation study for the analysis of compressible flows with combustion using a third-party OpenFOAM solver, reactingPimpleCentralFOAM, is performed for three cases: a one-dimensional (1D) laminar flame, a three-dimensional bluff-body stabilized flame, and a ramjet with a novel intake system operating at static conditions. The 1D laminar flame case was simulated for methane and propane flames for various reaction mechanisms. Results were found to reasonably agree with Cantera for global reaction mechanisms, but significant differences were observed when detailed chemical mechanisms were used. The second validation case compares reactingPimpleCentralFOAM results to experimental data available for a bluff-body stabilized premixed propane–air flame. A reasonable match between experimental and CFD results was obtained for the axial velocity when a modified mixing time scale was used with the default Partially-Stirred Reactor (PaSR) combustion model available in OpenFOAM. However the transverse velocity profiles were found to differ and the velocity fluctuations were generally over-predicted. For the final validation case, the thrust was found to be significantly under-predicted when the default PaSR combustion model was used. A modified PaSR model was implemented into OpenFOAM which scaled the reaction rate by the ratio of turbulent and laminar flame speed. This model was found to improve the prediction of thrust but it was still under-predicted compared to experiment. Both models were found to over-predict the entrainment of air into the engine by the fuel jet.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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