Bibliographic record
Abstract
The splitting of the airflow that passes through the openings in the combustor liner is vital to its performance. Traditionally, numerical simulations of the gas turbine combustor have limited the computational domain to only the flow field inside the liner, while the airflow distribution over the liner is estimated based on semi-empirical correlations. In addition, the airflow rates are assumed to be the same through the identical open passages at each combustor axial cross-section. In the present study, the internal and external flow fields of a practical gas turbine combustor liner are directly coupled, so the air splitting is determined by comprehensive simulations. The predicted results for the air distribution are closely correlated to the dataset estimated from recently improved semi-empirical correlations for passage discharge-coefficients. The simulations also show that the effects of the combustion process on the air splitting can be neglected. Lastly, the results reveal that the airflow through identical passages at the same axial cross-section are not equal, and can vary by up to ±25% of the mean. In summary, the present study suggests that when performing computational models of gas turbine combustor flows, the simulations should couple the liner’s internal and external air splits whenever possible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".