MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999227294

A CFD Analysis of Thrust Losses in a Solid Rocket Motor Nozzle

2025· article· en· W6999227294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDiVA at Umeå University (Umeå University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNozzleRocket (weapon)PropellantPropulsionThrustInternal ballisticsRocket engine nozzleComputational fluid dynamicsSolid-fuel rocket
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rocket propulsion is an ancient discipline built on centuries of innovation. Yet, the internal physics of rocket motors remains incompletely understood, with modern development still relying heavily on idealized models and empirical correlations. Recent advances in computational power have enabled a new approach that offers the potential to uncover the complex flow phenomena inside rocket motors: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). This work presents a comprehensive numerical framework for predicting the performance of a composite propellant rocket motor with a converging-diverging de Laval nozzle. The simulation captures compressible, reactive flow and the effects of suspended liquid aluminium oxide particles, employing Large Eddy Simulation with an implicit sub-grid formulation (ILES) to resolve the unsteady three-dimensional dynamics. Chemical kinetics are governed by a 97-reaction mechanism model and integrated using a third-order Rosenbrock ODE solver. Dispersed alumina particles in the nozzle flow are tracked with a Lagrangian Particle Tracking (LPT) module that exchanges momentum and heat with the gas phase. The method is validated against experimental data from a static-fire test of a Ballistic Test Motor (BTM) conducted at the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI). Simulated nozzle efficiency reaches 97.12%, matching the experimental result of 96.0%. Beyond serving as an accurate physics-based alternative to traditional one-dimensional ballistics codes, the framework provides spatially and temporally resolved flow fields that enhance physical insight. Though applied here to a lab-scale BTM, the methodology is extendable to full-scale motors, supporting future propulsion design and test-data interpretation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

Study designObservational
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 venueDiVA at Umeå University (Umeå University)Same topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207