Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Predicting Non-Ideal Effects from the Diaphragm Opening Process in Shock Tubes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the diaphragm opening process in shock tubes can be captured by a three-parameter sigmoid fit, and that adding those parameters sharply improves predictions of incident shock attenuation and post-shock pressure rise…

desk verdict Four-type rupture classification is useful, but the predictive claim is overreach until the correlations are validated on independent data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00257 v1 pith:L6MNMGYQ submitted 2024-11-29 physics.flu-dyn

Janardhanraj Subburaj , Miguel Figueroa-Labastida , Aamir Farooq This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords shocktubediaphragmopeningattenuationpost-shockpressurerisesigmoidfithigh-speedimagingnon-idealeffectsMachnumbercorrelation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that the way a shock tube diaphragm ruptures strongly shapes the non-ideal behavior of the shock tube, and that this can be predicted. High-speed imaging of polycarbonate diaphragm ruptures revealed four distinct opening types, and a sigmoid curve fit was used to quantify each opening with three constants. The authors then built new correlations for incident shock attenuation rate and post-shock pressure rise that include these opening constants, the opening time, and the ratio of experimental to ideal Mach number. Across the reported experiments, these new correlations fit the data far better than the prior pressure- and Mach-number-only correlations, with R² values of 0.63 and 0.72 versus 0.28 and 0.27. A sympathetic reader would care because test-time and pressure corrections in shock tube experiments could be made from a single video of the diaphragm rupture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sigmoid fit of the diaphragm opening profile, which reduces the complex rupture process to three constants $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$. These constants are then inserted into two new empirical correlations, Equation 5 for the incident shock attenuation rate $AR$ and Equation 9 for the post-shock pressure rise $dP^*/dt$, along with the opening time $T_{OP}$, the experimental Mach number, and the ideal Mach number from a one-dimensional inviscid shock tube code. The sigmoid fit supplies a compact, quantitative description of rupture shape that the old correlations lacked.

What would settle it

Run a matched pair of experiments with nearly identical early-stage opening profiles (same fitted $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$, and $T_{OP}$ within measurement uncertainty) but deliberately different late-stage behavior, for example by changing the diaphragm petal geometry after the first half of the opening; if the measured attenuation rate or post-shock pressure rise differs systematically between the pair, the early-stage-only assumption and the correlations that rely on it fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the initial stages of diaphragm opening, not the full opening history, dominate how the diaphragm influences the incident shock and the reflected-shock pressure profile. The paper classifies ruptures into four types and fits each opening profile with a sigmoid function $y = c_1/(1+e^{-c_2(x-c_3)})$, where $c_1$ is the final aperture, $c_2$ the sharpness of the transition, and $c_3$ the inflection point. Using these parameters, the opening time $T_{OP}$, and the ratio $M_1^{\mathrm{exp}}/M_1^{\mathrm{idl}}$ in new correlations, the paper reports that the attenuation rate prediction improves from $R^2 = 0.28$ to $0.63$ and the post-shock pressure rise prediction improves from $R^2 = 0.27$ to $0.72$ compared with the previous $P_1$–$M_1$ correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the first phase of diaphragm opening is enough to characterize the diaphragm's effect on the shock, so a sigmoid fit that is acknowledged to be inaccurate for the later stages of type-3 openings is still used to define $c_1$–$c_3$; if later-stage dynamics matter, the correlations built on those constants lose support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the correlations hold, shock tube users can predict attenuation and pressure rise from a single high-speed record of the diaphragm opening instead of relying only on fill pressure and Mach number.
  • Type-4 partial openings produce the largest shortfall in incident shock Mach number relative to ideal theory, yet they yield test times closer to ideal because the partially opened diaphragm slows the contact surface.
  • The correlations imply that faster, fuller openings reduce attenuation: $AR$ varies inversely with $c_1$ and $c_2$ and directly with $T_{OP}$ and $c_3$.
  • The sigmoid parameters provide a quantitative way to classify rupture types, converting qualitative high-speed images into a reproducible set of numbers for facility characterization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the early-stage-dominated picture generalizes, then a short imaging window covering only the first half of the opening might suffice to calibrate non-ideal corrections, reducing the camera and storage demands of routine shock tube operation.
  • A direct test of the assumption would be to manufacture diaphragms with nearly identical early opening profiles but deliberately different late-stage behavior; if attenuation or pressure rise changes, the sigmoid-based parameters are incomplete descriptors.
  • The empirical exponents in Equations 5 and 9 may be facility-specific; transferring them to other driver gases, driven gases, tube diameters, or diaphragm materials would require re-fitting, because the paper keeps both diameter and gas composition fixed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of diaphragm rupture dynamics in a 14.2-cm-diameter shock tube operated with helium driver gas and argon driven gas, using high-speed imaging to classify opening profiles into four distinct types. For 24 experiments, the authors measure the incident shock attenuation rate (AR) and post-reflected-shock pressure rise (dP*/dt), fit a sigmoid function (Eq. 2) to each recorded opening profile to obtain parameters c1-c3, and then propose two new correlations (Eq. 5 for AR, Eq. 9 for dP*/dt) that incorporate diaphragm opening time and the sigmoid parameters. The authors claim that these new correlations yield improved fits and 'more accurate predictions' compared with prior correlations based solely on P1 and M1, citing R^2 values of 0.63 and 0.72 versus 0.28 and 0.27 in Tables III and IV.

Significance. The experimental dataset is valuable: the four-type classification of diaphragm rupture, especially the incomplete type-4 opening, and its observed influence on incident shock Mach number and test time provide a useful qualitative contribution to the shock-tube community. The measurement methodology, including high-speed imaging, edge detection, and time-of-flight shock speed determination, is clearly described and appears sound. If the proposed correlations were rigorously validated, they could help practitioners account for facility-specific diaphragm effects. However, the central claim of 'predicition' is not yet supported because the correlations are evaluated only on the same data used to fit them; the paper therefore currently offers promising empirical fits rather than demonstrated predictive skill.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B, Table III; Section IV.C, Table IV; Conclusions] The claim that the new correlations (Eqs. 5 and 9) provide 'more accurate predictions' rests entirely on in-sample R^2 values obtained by fitting p1, p2, q1, q2 and the associated exponents to the same 24 experiments. With seven dependent parameters (P1, Mexp_1, Midl_1, T_op, c1, c2, c3) versus two in the prior correlations, an increase in R^2 from 0.28 to 0.63 (AR) and from 0.27 to 0.72 (dP*/dt) is expected even for noise-only additional predictors. No held-out data, cross-validation, leave-one-out test, or independent measurements are presented anywhere in the manuscript. Consequently, the words 'predict' and 'accurate predictions' in the title, abstract, and conclusions are not supported. The authors should either provide out-of-sample validation or reframe the contribution as descriptive curve fitting.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eq. 5; Section IV.C, Eq. 9] The exponents in the new correlations (T_op^0.15, c1^-0.2, c2^-0.2, c3^0.2 for Eq. 5; P1^0.5, (Mexp_1)^4, (Midl_1)^0.16, T_op^-1, c1^0.7, c2^-0.5, c3^-1.5 for Eq. 9) are introduced without derivation, physical scaling argument, or sensitivity analysis. They appear to have been tuned to the same data used for evaluation. Notably, the P1 exponent in Eq. 9 changes from -0.04 in the prior correlation (Eq. 8) to +0.5, a sign reversal that the manuscript does not address. This either indicates a previously unrecognized physical effect that must be explained, or it is a symptom of overfitting. At minimum, the authors should report the regression procedure, the uncertainties in the exponents, and an adjusted or cross-validated goodness-of-fit metric.
  3. [Section IV.A, Figure 6] The c1-c3 parameters used in the correlations are themselves obtained from sigmoid fits to each experimental opening profile, and the paper acknowledges that the sigmoid fit is 'less accurate for the latter stages' of type-3 openings. The correlations therefore constitute fits layered on fits, with no propagation of uncertainty from the sigmoid fits into the predicted AR and dP*/dt values. The assertion that the initial phase of diaphragm opening is sufficient to characterize its influence relies on a single prior study (Fukushima et al.) rather than being tested here. The authors should either perform an uncertainty/sensitivity analysis for the c-parameters or explicitly limit the conclusions to the range of conditions and opening types studied.
  4. [Tables III and IV] Reporting only raw R^2 values makes the comparison between the new correlations (7 predictors) and the prior correlations (1-2 predictors) misleading. The addition of five extra free parameters requires a degrees-of-freedom-penalized metric such as adjusted R^2, AIC/BIC, or a cross-validated R^2. Without such a metric, the reader cannot distinguish genuine predictive improvement from the expected increase in explained variance due to added regressors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The third subplot in the caption is labeled '(b)' but should be '(c)', since the text refers to it as Figure 5c.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The solid line is described as an 'identify line'; this should be 'identity line'.
  3. [Introduction, reference 14] The material name is misspelled as 'cellophone'; it should be 'cellophane'.
  4. [Section III.C] The symbol 'P41' is used without definition; it apparently denotes the driver-to-driven pressure ratio P4/P1 and should be written accordingly.
  5. [Equations (5), (9) and Tables III, IV] The superscripts on the experimental and ideal Mach numbers (M_exp_1 and Midl_1) are sometimes omitted in the text; please define and use these notations consistently.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The new 'prediction' correlations are in-sample fits: Eqs. 5 and 9 are calibrated to the same 23 experiments used to report R², so the claimed predictive improvement over earlier correlations is not demonstrated.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.B, Eq. 5 and Table III]
    "Using the same correlation, the current study adjusted p1 and p2 to achieve the best fit for the data. ... Therefore, the attenuation rate is considered to be proportional to P1, Mexp1, Midl1, TOP, c1, c2, and c3. The developed correlation for the experimental data is given by the following equation: F = P−0.14 1 · s Mexp 1 Midl 1 · T 0.15 OP · c−0.2 1 · c−0.2 2 · c0.2 3 (5) ... Table III indicates that the R2 value for the new correlation is much better than that for the previous correlation, demonstrating an improved fit and a more accurate prediction of shock attenuation rates."

    Equation 5 is constructed from the same experimental dataset whose attenuation rates are then used to evaluate the fit. The constants p1 and p2 are explicitly adjusted to this dataset, and the additional regressors (Midl1, TOP, c1, c2, c3) are measured from the same 23 runs. The R² = 0.63 in the same table is therefore an in-sample goodness-of-fit statistic, not a predictive skill score. Since Eq. 3 has only one regressor while Eq. 5 adds five more, a higher R² is expected even if the added diaphragm parameters carry no true predictive content. No held-out experiments, cross-validation, or independent data are presented, so the statement 'more accurate prediction' reduces to the correlation fitting the data that generated it.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.C, Eq. 9 and Table IV]
    "Using the above equations, the current study adjusted the constants q1 and q2 to achieve the best fit for the data. ... In order to include the diaphragm opening time, shock Mach number and opening profile parameters in the correlation, the post-shock pressure rise is considered to be proportional to P1, Mexp1, Midl1, TOP, c1, c2, and c3. The newly developed correlation is given by the equation: G = P0.5 1 · (Mexp 1 )4 · (Midl 1 )0.16 · T −1 op · c0.7 1 · c−0.5 2 · c−1.5 3 (9) ..."

    The same in-sample circularity applies: q1 and q2 are fitted to the measured dP*/dt values from the same 23 experiments, and the c1-c3 parameters are themselves sigmoid fits to the opening profiles of those same runs. The reported R² = 0.72 is a measure of how well Eq. 9 reproduces the calibration data, not how well it predicts new cases. The comparison against Eq. 8 is also not a fair predictive test because Eq. 9 contains many more fitted/selected terms. Thus the claim that the new correlation enables 'more accurate prediction' is supported only by the fit of the regression to its own training set.

full rationale

The paper's sigmoid characterization of diaphragm opening is a legitimate data-reduction step: c1, c2 and c3 are fitted to high-speed images and then used as physical inputs; that is not circular. The circularity lies in the central 'prediction' claims for Eqs. 5 and 9. Both correlations are calibrated on the same 23 experiments that are later used to compute the reported R² values, and the R² improvement over the one- or two-variable prior correlations is presented as evidence of predictive skill. Because no independent validation is provided, the improvement can be fully explained by the additional fitted parameters absorbing noise. This matches the pattern of a fitted input being called a prediction. The finding is proportional: the empirical correlations may have descriptive value, and the four rupture types and Mach-number comparisons are independent observations, but the title-level claim of predicting non-ideal effects from diaphragm opening is not yet supported by the paper's own evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central correlations rest on several free fitting constants and exponents with no independent validation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • p1 and p2 (AR correlation, Eq 5) = 12.44, 0.51
    Linear fit constants adjusted by the authors to best fit the measured attenuation data (Table III).
  • q1 and q2 (dP*/dt correlation, Eq 9) = 3.4e-4, -0.16
    Linear fit constants adjusted to best fit measured pressure-rise data (Table IV).
  • Exponents in Eq 5 (T_op, c1, c2, c3) = 0.15, -0.2, -0.2, 0.2
    Power-law exponents for the new AR correlation; chosen or fitted to improve R^2 from 0.28 to 0.63. No derivation or uncertainty is given.
  • Exponents in Eq 9 (P1, M_exp, M_idl, T_op, c1, c2, c3) = 0.5, 4, 0.16, -1, 0.7, -0.5, -1.5
    Power-law exponents for the dP*/dt correlation; fitted to raise R^2 from 0.27 to 0.72. No derivation or uncertainty is given.
  • Sigmoid fit parameters c1, c2, c3 per test = See Table II
    Fitted to each opening profile using Eq 2; these are used as inputs to the AR and dP*/dt correlations, making the final correlations fits of fits.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math One-dimensional inviscid flow with instantaneous diaphragm rupture is the correct ideal baseline for M_idl.
    Used to compute M_idl and ideal test time in Section III.B. This is a standard idealization, not a source of error for the correlation comparison.
  • domain assumption The initial phase of diaphragm rupture predominantly determines shock formation, following Fukushima et al.
    Invoked in Section IV.A to justify accepting sigmoid fits that are poor for late-stage type-3 openings.
  • ad hoc to paper AR and dP*/dt are linear functions of a power-law combination of parameters, i.e., AR = p1 + p2*F and dP*/dt = q1 + q2*G.
    Equations 3 and 7 assume this linear-plus-power-law form without derivation; it is a modeling choice borrowed from prior correlations.
  • ad hoc to paper Diaphragm opening parameters enter the correlations multiplicatively as independent powers.
    Equations 5 and 9 assume no interaction terms between T_op and the c's, and the exponents are fitted to the data.
  • domain assumption The post-shock pressure rise is linear over the test time so a linear fit gives dP*/dt.
    The measurement of dP*/dt in Section II.B assumes linearity, which is standard practice in shock tube studies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting Non-Ideal Effects from the Diaphragm Opening Process in Shock Tubes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L6MNMGYQ

@misc{pith2026241200257,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting Non-Ideal Effects from the Diaphragm Opening Process in Shock Tubes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L6MNMGYQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00257}
}
read the original abstract

Shock tubes are instrumental in studying high-temperature kinetics and simulating high-speed flows. They swiftly elevate the thermodynamic conditions of test gases, making them ideal for examining rapid chemical reactions and generating high-enthalpy flows for aerodynamic research. However, non-ideal effects, stemming from factors like diaphragm opening processes and viscous effects, can significantly influence thermodynamic conditions behind the shock wave. This study investigates the impact of various diaphragm opening patterns on the shock parameters near the driven section end-wall. Experiments were conducted using helium and argon as driver and driven gases, respectively, at pressures ranging from 1.32 to 2.09 bar and temperatures from 1073 to 2126 K behind the reflected shock. High-speed imaging captured different diaphragm rupture profiles, classified into four distinct types based on their dynamics. Results indicate that the initial stages of diaphragm opening, including the rate and profile of opening, play crucial roles in resulting incident shock Mach number and test time. A sigmoid function was employed to fit the diaphragm opening profiles, allowing for accurate categorization and analysis. New correlations were developed to predict the incident shock attenuation rate and post-shock pressure rise, incorporating parameters such as diaphragm opening time, rupture profile constants, and normalized experimental Mach number. The results emphasize the importance of considering diaphragm rupture dynamics in shock tube experiments to achieve accurate predictions of shock parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00257 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagrams of the LPST and the high-speed imaging setup. (a) Cross-sectional view of LPST showing the diaphragm station [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Different diaphragm opening profiles observed in the experiments. On the left, images captured using the high-speed camera at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Plot showing the percentage of opening as a function of normalized time. Time is normalized with opening time of the diaphragm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of experimentally obtained Mach number and test time with those obtained using 1-D inviscid shock relations (ideal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Plots showing comparison between the tests with similar incident shock Mach number but different rupture profiles. (a) Comparing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plot showing curve fitting using the sigmoid function (Eq. 2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison between existing correlation for incident shock wave (ISW) attenuation rate and the newly developed correlation. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison between existing correlation for post-shock pressure rise, d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  3. [3]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  4. [4]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  5. [5]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  6. [6]

    author author A. G. \ Gaydon \ and\ author I. R. \ Hurle ,\ title title The shock tube in high-temperature chemical physics , \ @noop journal journal (No Title) \ ( year 1963 ) NoStop

    work page 1963

  7. [7]

    author author T. A. \ Kashif , author J. Subburaj , author M. Z. A. \ Khan , \ and\ author A. Farooq ,\ title title Insights into shock velocity variation in double-diaphragm shock tubes , \ 10.1063/5.0205160 journal journal Physics of Fluids \ volume 36 ,\ pages 056124 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0205160

  8. [8]

    Janardhanraj , author S

    author author S. Janardhanraj , author S. Karthick , \ and\ author A. Farooq ,\ title title A review of diaphragmless shock tubes for interdisciplinary applications , \ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2022.101042 journal journal Progress in Energy and Combustion Science \ volume 93 ,\ pages 101042 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page arXiv 2022

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Subburaj , author T

    author author J. Subburaj , author T. A. \ Kashif , \ and\ author A. Farooq ,\ title title Methane and n-hexane ignition in a newly developed diaphragmless shock tube , \ @noop journal journal Combustion and Flame \ volume 253 ,\ pages 112818 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  2. [10]

    Nativel , author S

    author author D. Nativel , author S. P. \ Cooper , author T. Lipkowicz , author M. Fikri , author E. L. \ Petersen , \ and\ author C. Schulz ,\ title title Impact of shock-tube facility-dependent effects on incident- and reflected-shock conditions over a wide range of pressure...

    doi

  3. [11]

    author author G. A. \ Campbell , author G. M. \ Kimber , \ and\ author D. H. \ Napier ,\ title title Bursting of diaphragms as related to the operation of shock tubes , \ 10.1088/0950-7671/42/6/303 journal journal Journal of Scientific Instruments \ volume 42 ,\ pages 381–384 ...

    doi

  4. [12]

    author author E. M. \ Rothkopf \ and\ author W. Low ,\ title title Diaphragm opening process in shock tubes , \ 10.1063/1.1694860 journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 17 ,\ pages 1169--1173 ( year 1974 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pfl/article-pd...

    1974 doi

  5. [13]

    author author I. I. \ Glass \ and\ author W. A. \ Martin ,\ title title Experimental and theoretical aspects of shock-wave attenuation , \ <Go to ISI>://WOS:A1955WF80600018 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 26 ,\ pages 115--120 ( year 1955 ) ,\ note wf806 Tim...

    1955

  6. [14]

    author author R. S. \ Hickman , author L. C. \ Farrar , \ and\ author J. B. \ Kyser ,\ title title Behavior of burst diaphragms in shock tubes , \ 10.1063/1.861010 journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 18 ,\ pages 1249--1252 ( year 1975 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https...

    doi

  7. [15]

    Kaneko , author J

    author author W. Kaneko , author J. Yoshihara , \ and\ author K. Ishii ,\ title title Effects of opening process of diaphragm on shock strength in a circular tube , \ 10.1299/transjsme.15-00541 journal journal Transactions of the JSME (in Japanese) \ volume 82 ,\ pages 15--005...

    doi

  8. [16]

    Wegener , author M

    author author M. Wegener , author M. Sutcliffe , \ and\ author R. Morgan ,\ title title Optical study of a light diaphragm rupture process in an expansion tube , \ 10.1007/s001930050003 journal journal Shock Waves \ volume 10 ,\ pages 167–178 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    doi

  9. [17]

    Mizoguchi \ and\ author S

    author author M. Mizoguchi \ and\ author S. Aso ,\ title title Numerical study on diaphragm rupture for performance improvement of a free piston shock tunnel , \ in\ 10.2514/6.2006-8110 booktitle 14th AIAA/AHI Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference \ (...

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    Sasoh , author J

    author author A. Sasoh , author J. Maemura , author S. Hirakata , author K. Takayama , \ and\ author J. Falcovitz ,\ title title Diaphragm rupture. impingement by a conically-nosed, ram-accelerator projectile , \ 10.1007/s001930050135 journal journal Shock Waves \ volume 9 ,\ ...

    doi

  11. [19]

    Takahashi , author H

    author author T. Takahashi , author H. Torikai , author Q. S. \ Yang , author K. Watanabe , \ and\ author A. Sasoh ,\ title Active diaphragm rupture with laser beam irradiation , \ in\ 10.1007/978-3-540-27009-6_42 booktitle Shock Waves \ ( publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg ...

    doi

  12. [20]

    author author D. R. \ White ,\ title title Influence of diaphragm opening time on shock-tube flows , \ 10.1017/S0022112058000677 journal journal Journal of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 4 ,\ pages 585--599 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

    1958 doi

  13. [21]

    Ikui , author K

    author author T. Ikui , author K. Matsuo , \ and\ author M. Nagai ,\ title title Investigations of the aerodynamic characteristics of the shock tubes:(part 2, on the formation of shock waves) , \ @noop journal journal Bulletin of JSME \ volume 12 ,\ pages 783--792 ( year 1969 ) NoStop

    1969

  14. [22]

    Ikui \ and\ author K

    author author T. Ikui \ and\ author K. Matsuo ,\ title title Investigations of the aerodynamic characteristics of the shock tubes:(part 1, the effects of tube diameter on the tube performance) , \ @noop journal journal Bulletin of JSME \ volume 12 ,\ pages 774--782 ( year 1969...

    1969

  15. [23]

    author author E. M. \ Rothkopf \ and\ author W. Low ,\ title title Shock formation distance in a pressure driven shock tube , \ @noop journal journal Physics of Fluids (1958-1988) \ volume 19 ,\ pages 1885--1888 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

    1958

  16. [24]

    author author J. E. \ Drewry \ and\ author Z. A. \ Walenta ,\ @noop title Determination of diaphragm opening-times and use of diaphragm particle traps in a hypersonic shock tube , \ type NASA Technical Report \ number NASA-CR-69546 \ ( institution NASA ,\ address Toronto Univ....

    1965

  17. [25]

    Brun \ and\ author R

    author author R. Brun \ and\ author R. Reboh ,\ title title Influence of the diaphragm opening process on the initial flow in shock-tubes , \ https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-6413(76)90015-X journal journal Mechanics Research Communications \ volume 3 ,\ pages 215--219 ( year 1976...

    doi

  18. [26]

    author author C. J. S. M. \ Simpson , author T. R. D. \ Chandler , \ and\ author K. B. \ Bridgman ,\ title title Effect on shock trajectory of the opening time of diaphragms in a shock tube , \ 10.1063/1.1762384 journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 10 ,\ pages 1894–1...

    doi

  19. [27]

    Ikui , author K

    author author T. Ikui , author K. Matsuo , \ and\ author Y. Yamamoto ,\ title title Fast-acting valves for use in shock tubes: part 2, formation of shock waves , \ @noop journal journal Bulletin of JSME \ volume 22 ,\ pages 693--699 ( year 1979 ) NoStop

    1979

  20. [28]

    author author A. K. \ Rajagopal ,\ title title Computational study on micro shock tube flows with gradual diaphragm rupture process , \ 10.4236/ojfd.2012.224027 journal journal Open Journal of Fluid Dynamics \ volume 02 ,\ pages 235–241 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  21. [29]

    Smith ,\ title Finite element modelling of metallic diaphragm rupture in hypersonic shock tube ,\ 10.14264/uql.2017.198 Ph.D

    author author D. Smith ,\ title Finite element modelling of metallic diaphragm rupture in hypersonic shock tube ,\ 10.14264/uql.2017.198 Ph.D. thesis ,\ school University of Queensland Library NoStop

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Lacey ,\ title Development of material strength and failure models for structural simulation of metallic shock tube diaphragms ,\ 10.14264/uql.2018.324 Ph.D

    author author B. Lacey ,\ title Development of material strength and failure models for structural simulation of metallic shock tube diaphragms ,\ 10.14264/uql.2018.324 Ph.D. thesis ,\ school University of Queensland Library NoStop

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Gaetani , author A

    author author P. Gaetani , author A. Guardone , \ and\ author G. Persico ,\ title title Shock tube flows past partially opened diaphragms , \ 10.1017/s0022112008000815 journal journal Journal of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 602 ,\ pages 267–286 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi

  24. [32]

    author author M. M. \ Alves \ and\ author C. T. \ Johansen ,\ title title Modeling shock-wave strength near a partially opened diaphragm in a shock tube , \ 10.1007/s00193-021-01028-4 journal journal Shock Waves \ volume 31 ,\ pages 499–508 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi

  25. [33]

    Houas , author L

    author author L. Houas , author L. Biamino , author C. Mariani , author O. Igra , author G. Jourdan , \ and\ author A. Massol ,\ title title The effects that changes in the diaphragm aperture have on the resulting shock tube flow , \ 10.1007/s00193-012-0372-0 journal journal S...

    doi

  26. [34]

    Fukushima , author T

    author author G. Fukushima , author T. Tamba , author A. Iwakawa , \ and\ author A. Sasoh ,\ title title Influence of cellophane diaphragm rupture processes on the shock wave formation in a shock tube , \ 10.1007/s00193-020-00951-2 journal journal Shock Waves \ volume 30 ,\ pa...

    doi

  27. [35]

    Janardhanraj , author K

    author author S. Janardhanraj , author K. Abhishek , \ and\ author G. Jagadeesh ,\ title title Insights into the shockwave attenuation in miniature shock tubes , \ 10.1017/jfm.2020.914 journal journal Journal of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 910 ( year 2021 ),\ 10.1017/jfm.2020.914 NoStop

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Figueroa-Labastida , author J

    author author M. Figueroa-Labastida , author J. Badra , author A. M. \ Elbaz , \ and\ author A. Farooq ,\ title title Shock tube studies of ethanol preignition , \ 10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.09.011 journal journal Combustion and Flame \ volume 198 ,\ pages 176–185 ( year 2018...

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    author author H. Mirels ,\ title title Test Time in Low‐Pressure Shock Tubes , \ 10.1063/1.1706887 journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 6 ,\ pages 1201--1214 ( year 1963 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pfl/article-pdf/6/9/1201/12284584/1201\_1\_onl...

    1963 doi

  30. [38]

    author author H. MIRELS ,\ title title Shock tube test time limitation due to turbulentwall boundary layer , \ 10.2514/3.2218 journal journal AIAA Journal \ volume 2 ,\ pages 84--93 ( year 1964 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.2514/3.2218 https://doi.org/10.2514/3....

    1964 doi

  31. [39]

    author author E. L. \ Petersen \ and\ author R. K. \ Hanson ,\ title title Nonideal effects behind reflected shock waves in a high-pressure shock tube , \ 10.1007/PL00004051 journal journal Shock Waves \ volume 10 ,\ pages 405 – 420 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    doi

  32. [40]

    author author I. E. N. \ Lim ,\ title Schlieren photography of metallic diaphragm rupturing and shock formation processes , \ in\ 10.1007/978-1-4613-3377-7_88 booktitle High Speed Photography \ ( publisher Springer US ,\ year 1975 )\ p.\ pages 532–538 NoStop

    doi

  33. [41]

    author author D. G. \ Edwards ,\ title title The bursting pressure of metal diaphragms in square section shock tubes , \ 10.1017/s0001924000047199 journal journal The Aeronautical Journal \ volume 74 ,\ pages 57–58 ( year 1970 ) NoStop

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.