MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization design of hydrogen Laval nozzle based on response surface methodology (RSM)

2024· article· en· W4402357228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianyang Fang, Yusheng Ju, Liwei Mao, Shichao Pei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResponse surface methodologyNozzleHydrogenDesign of experimentsMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To conduct an in-depth study of the injection characteristics of gas fuels, the structural parameters of the nozzle are optimized. Utilizing the Response Surface Method (RSM), this study selects an inlet radius R 1 , outlet radius R 2 , throat straight radius R 0 , expansion half angle θ , and contraction half angle α as design parameters. Based on the validated numerical model, a response surface prediction model for outlet velocity v and mass flow rate Q is established. Using the derived expressions, the contribution and interactive effects of design variables on response variables are analyzed. The findings indicate that the outlet radius and throat radius significantly affect the outlet velocity. The outlet radius positively correlates with the outlet velocity, while the throat radius negatively correlates with it. The mass flow rate is most significantly influenced by the throat radius, increasing with its increase. With outlet velocity and mass flow rate as optimization objectives, the MOGA algorithm is applied for multi-objective optimization. The optimization results indicate that the optimized structural parameters increased the centrifugal nozzle’s atomization cone angle and mass flow rate by 1.86% and 27.4%, respectively.

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 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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207