Detonation Cell Size Prediction Using Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) for Hydrogen/Hydrocarbon/Ammonia/Nitrous Oxide Mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, a previously developed three-feature Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model with dimensional inputs is directly applied to predict the cell size of hydrocarbon/ammonia/nitrous oxide mixtures and compare these to experimental data. This model uses as inputs three ZND parameters (MCJ, ΔI, and σ˙max), which are mainly calculated using Konnov’s and Mével’s mechanisms. A similar prediction is obtained with the two mechanisms for the biogas–O2, H2–O2, H2–N2O, and NH3–O2 mixtures, indicating that the model is not only limited to Konnov’s chemical kinetic mechanism which was used for its training. The overall good agreement between the ANN predictions and the actual experimental values for the aforementioned mixtures, which are not used in the original training of the ANN model, is promising and shows its potential for application and extension to other mixtures and initial conditions, provided that the chemical kinetic parameters describing the ideal reaction zone structure could be computed. The model is then used to compare experimental cell size data from two detonation tube facilities, and also different chemical kinetic mechanisms for NH3-N2O mixtures. In the end, the original ANN model is expanded with the inclusion of additional cell size data, showing a slightly lower mean error for the predicted cell sizes if the data for the mixtures considered in this study are taken into account for the training of the new ANN model.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".