MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416716225 · doi:10.2514/1.b40192

Modeling the Regression Rates of Protrusion-and-Lattice Hybrid Rocket Fuel Grains

2025· article· en· W4416716225 on OpenAlexafffund
Annapurna Basavaraju, J. Wong, Craig T. Johansen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Propulsion and Power · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPropellantCombustionSolid fuelVolume fractionThrustHeat transferRamjetBoiler (water heating)Combustion chamberConvection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid rockets based on neat paraffin fuel grains often suffer from poor combustion efficiency due to fuel sloughing and propellant stratification. Fuel sloughing occurs when unburned fuel fragments detach because of the weak mechanical properties of paraffin, reducing thrust and risking motor failure. Embedding lattice structures within the fuel grain enhances structural integrity and mitigates sloughing. Stratification refers to the layering of fuel-rich and oxidizer-rich zones, resulting from the diffusion flame formed at the interface between the solid fuel and gaseous oxidizer that leads to incomplete combustion. To address this, prior studies have introduced passive mixing devices, such as protrusions, to enhance turbulent mixing and combustion efficiency. The first objective of this study is to develop a one-dimensional analytical model that predicts the regression rates of protrusion-and-lattice-augmented fuel grains, accounting for enhanced convective heat transfer induced by protrusions. The second objective is to evaluate the effect of lattice volume fraction on regression rates for values ranging from 5% to 25% and compare predictions with experimental data. Results indicate that increasing lattice volume fraction reduces regression rates, and the model accurately captures this trend, matching experimental data within the error margin for lattice volume fractions up to 10%.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designOther design
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Propulsion and PowerSame topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207