MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387017126 · doi:10.2514/1.b39214

Quasi-Two-Dimensional Simulation of a Rotating Detonation Engine Combustor and Injector

2023· article· en· W4387017126 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

VenueJournal of Propulsion and Power · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of OttawaRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjectorDetonationCombustorPlenum spaceMechanicsStagnation pressureDeflagration to detonation transitionMaterials scienceShock (circulatory)Stagnation temperatureShock waveFlow (mathematics)Aerospace engineeringCombustionMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsMach numberChemistryExplosive materialStagnation pointHeat transfer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical simulation of an annular rotating detonation engine with stoichiometric hydrogen–oxygen is performed. A generic, well-posed, and easily implemented approach using a quasi-two-dimensional method to model the area variations through the rotating detonation engine’s injector and combustor is presented. The detonation–injector interaction is studied for the case with a ratio of four between the combustor and injector’s throat areas. A shock wave is formed in the divergent portion of the injector due to the high backpressure created by the detonation in the combustor. A Favre-averaged steady-state analysis of stream lines and particle paths reveals that the shock causes an irrecoverable loss of stagnation pressure. Stagnation pressure gain in the combustor is insufficient to make up for the loss, and the flow leaves the engine with lower stagnation pressure than in the plenum.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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 head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · 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