MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362509578 · doi:10.2514/1.j062744

New Parent Flowfield for Streamline-Traced Intakes

2023· article· en· W4362509578 on OpenAlexaff
Omer Musa, Guoping Huang, Bo Jin, Sannu Mölder, Zonghan Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInviscid flowConical surfaceShock (circulatory)MechanicsMach numberFlow (mathematics)Shock wavePhysicsComputational fluid dynamicsAerodynamicsHypersonic speedAerospace engineeringGeometryMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prespecified flowfield is essential in the inverse design method for generating inward-turning streamline-traced intakes, i.e., the parent flowfield. The internal conical flow C (ICFC) flowfield shows superiority over other parent flowfields in terms of performance and length. A drawback to the ICFC flowfield is the existence of the expansion zone, which creates a second reflected shock and decreases the flow uniformity. Hence, this paper proposes a new basic flowfield called the internal conical flow M (ICFM) to overcome the shortcoming of the ICFC flowfield. For the proposed basic flowfield, a new methodology has been devised for connecting the M-flow and truncated Busemann flowfields. This methodology merges the singular line of the M-flow with the truncated ray of Busemann flowfield in order to reduce the flow inclination angle difference effectively. The concept of the basic flowfield is reviewed, and the new ICFM basic flowfield is calculated using the Taylor–Maccoll equations. Complete details of the new merging procedure and calculation of the ICFM flowfield are presented. The characteristics of the new basic flowfield with design conditions of Mach 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 are examined at different outflow conditions. A comparison with the ICFC flowfield indicates that the new ICFM basic flowfield demonstrates better inviscid performance and a shorter length. Besides, the expansion region is significantly reduced, and the second reflected shock wave is eradicated.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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