MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407925217 · doi:10.37934/arfmts.127.2.132

Base Pressure Control using Quarter Rib at Mach 1.3: A Comprehensive CFD Analysis

2025· article· en· W4407925217 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shamitha Shetty, Fharukh Ahmed Ghasi Mahaboobali, Ambareen Khan, Mohammad Nishat Akhtar, Sher Afghan Khan, Khizar Ahmed Pathan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma and Flow Control in Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsMach numberBase (topology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Marine engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringMathematicsHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of base pressure and its control is an important research area in the transonic speed when the flow undergoes a sudden change in area. The turbulent flow in a separated region is still a crucial area of research due to the advent of space shuttles and high-performance military aircraft, and turbulent flow in transonic and supersonic flow is a thrust area for researchers. This paper focuses on base pressure control with sudden expansion at Mach 1.3 for an area ratio of 4.84. The flow field inside the duct is controlled through a passive control in the form of quarter ribs of radii 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm for various duct lengths in the range from L = 1D to 6D for nozzle pressure ratios in the range from 3 to 11. Results show that a 1 mm rib is not adequate, and rib radii 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm are effective in raising the base pressure values, and this rise in the base pressure continues till the duct length L = 1D to 4D. There is a marginal reduction in base pressure for the duct lengths L = 5D and 6D due to the ineffectiveness of the back pressure.

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)0.002
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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal SciencesSame topicPlasma and Flow Control in AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207