MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409624429 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2025.229

Shock-induced ignition and transition to detonation in the presence of mechanically induced nonlinear acoustic forcing

2025· article· en· W4409624429 on OpenAlexafffund
Wentian Wang, James G. McDonald, Matei I. Radulescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaShell
KeywordsShock (circulatory)MechanicsDetonationMaterials scienceIgnition systemNonlinear systemForcing (mathematics)Deflagration to detonation transitionShock waveThermodynamicsPhysicsAtmospheric sciencesExplosive materialMedicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address the problem of shock-induced ignition and transition to detonation in a reactive medium in the presence of mechanically induced fluctuations by a moving oscillating piston. For the inert problem prior to ignition, we provide a novel closed-form model in Lagrangian coordinates for the generation of the train of compression and expansions, their steepening into a train of N-shock waves and their reflection on the lead shock, as well as the distribution of the energy dissipation rate in the induction zone. The model is found to be in excellent agreement with numerics. Reactive calculations were performed for hydrogen and ethylene fuels using a novel high-fidelity scheme to solve the reactive Euler equations written in Lagrangian coordinates. Different regimes of ignition and transition to detonation, controlled by the time scale of the forcing and the two time scales of the chemistry: the induction and reaction times. Two novel hotspot cascade mechanisms were identified. The first relies on the coherence between the sequence of hotspot formation set by the piston forcing and forward-wave interaction with the lead shock, generalising the classic runaway in fast flames. The second hotspot cascade is triggered by the feedback between the pressure pulse generated by the first-generation hotspot cascade and the shock. For slow forcing, the sensitisation is through a modification to the classic runaway process, while the high-frequency regime leads to very localised subcritical hotspot formation controlled by the cumulative energy dissipation of the first-generation shocks at a distance comparable with the shock formation location.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207