Flow-Field Investigation of Two Gas-Sampling Probes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow fields in and around two versions of a water-cooled gas-sampling probe, situated downstream of a gas turbine combustor, were numerically studied in an elevated pressure and temperature environment. The probes are of triple-walled stainless steel assembly, where the gas sample is transported through a centre tube, while preheated and pressurized cooling water flows through two surrounding annuli. Complex conjugate heat transfers amongst the exhaust mixture, cooling water and probe walls were modelled at a selected operating condition. The numerical results indicate over-heating and possible vaporization of water or cavitation in the upstream tip region of the probe with the original design. This is consistent with the evidence of damage observed in these probes from prolonged testing under similar conditions. For the modified probe, the effectiveness of cooling water is much improved, which is confirmed by long-term combustor rig testing. From this investigation, some recommendations for probe design and operation are provided. Moreover, the present study has proved that the numerical simulation is a valuable tool for probe design and trouble-shooting, and to accurately predict conjugate heat transfers in such flows, the laminar sub-layer in the near-wall region should be adequately resolved.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".