MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008052202

Analysis of shock dynamics in supersonic intakes

2009· dissertation· en· W7008052202 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsShock (circulatory)Shock waveFlow (mathematics)Supersonic speedComputational fluid dynamicsWork (physics)AerodynamicsDynamics (music)Moving shock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work investigates fluid mechanical processes involving movement of shock waves inside channels. In particular, the prediction and control of shock motion in intakes is of great importance to high-speed flight and future spacecraft engines--it is a fundamental problem whose solution currently enjoys a high degree of interest. In the first part of the thesis, an analytical, numerical, and experimental study is performed in two-dimensions to assess the quasi-steady flow starting characteristics in an external-compression ramp-type intake. Using the popular model based on common understanding in the field and consistent with well-cited literature, it is shown that the traditional model based on one-dimensional flow across a planar shock is inaccurate. To remedy this, a novel analytical model is presented to predict off-design self-starting behaviour using a curved shock wave. The analytical results are supported by the numerical evidence from CFD simulations as well as by the experimental evidence; taken together, these results constitute overwhelming evidence supporting the arguments presented. In the second part of the thesis, an analytical and numerical study is performed in the unsteady, quasi-one-dimensional setting to assess the feasibility of predicting shock dynamics inside an intake using a simple, approximate, yet representative model. There is very little widely-available knowledge on impulsive flow starting in the literature, and there is no existing theory for analytically predicting impulsive flow starting phenomena discussed here. The well-known Chester-Chisnell-Whitham formulation is extended using a novel model (labelled lifting isentrope); it is effectively a provision for non-uniform, unsteady flow upstream of the shock wave. It is found that a singularity exists in the CCW model, which prevents its application to problems in impulsive flow starting. There is little or no literature on this singularity. To resolve these issues, a novel for

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207